3 ms·

> More polite No, this intuition is incorrect. By using one of UUNet's (or someone else's) public caching name servers, you're increasing the cache diversity

> More polite No, this intuition is incorrect. By using one of UUNet's (or someone else's) public caching name servers, you're increasing the cache diversity in a very widely used public cache and reducing the overall load on the global root name servers AND domain-level authority servers by reducing cache misses and reducing query traffic in a cumulative manner. Think about it in terms of extremes/limits. If everyone on the internet ran their own server, would the root infrastructure slow down or speed up? Personally I think it's somewhat insane and counterproductive to setup a DNS server on your laptop - not only are you wasting your own CPU cycles, you're wasting the CPU cycles of the root name servers and CPU cycles of the domain-level authority servers. Why do that when there are numerous public cache servers setup specifically for this very purpose?! There's a reason those massive cache servers are accessible by the public internet. They help it work.

spc476 18y ago
I have some issues with this. First off, there are 13 root servers across a wide variety of networks, whereas (I checked) there are only two UUNet DNS servers, both of which are on the same network. You've just exchanged the load from 13 servers across the Inernet to two servers on a single network. Also, there do exist DNS attacks to poison DNS resolvers, and if I suspect poisoned results, I can restart my own local DNS resolver, but I can't restart UUNet's. There's also the issue of connectivity. There may be an issue with connectivity between your ISP and UUNet, but otherwise the rest of the Internet is accessible. If I can't get to sites, I now have to take the time to determine if it's a problem locally (ISP is down), or if there's a networking issue between me and UUNet. A locally run DNS server means I can troubleshoot that particular issue quicker.
- chiffonade 18y ago
  > only two UUNet DNS servers I'm talking about their publicly accessible caching DNS servers, of which are there are far more than two. I'm not talking about the ones they register with the domain registrar to host their authoritative zone files. That's completely different. > both of which are on the same network. You've just exchanged the load from 13 servers across the Inernet to two servers on a single network. That's not how DNS works. Furthermore, that's the entire role of a cache server.

spc476 18y ago

I have some issues with this. First off, there are 13 root servers across a wide variety of networks, whereas (I checked) there are only two UUNet DNS servers, both of which are on the same network. You've just exchanged the load from 13 servers across the Inernet to two servers on a single network. Also, there do exist DNS attacks to poison DNS resolvers, and if I suspect poisoned results, I can restart my own local DNS resolver, but I can't restart UUNet's. There's also the issue of connectivity. There may be an issue with connectivity between your ISP and UUNet, but otherwise the rest of the Internet is accessible. If I can't get to sites, I now have to take the time to determine if it's a problem locally (ISP is down), or if there's a networking issue between me and UUNet. A locally run DNS server means I can troubleshoot that particular issue quicker.

chiffonade 18y ago
> only two UUNet DNS servers I'm talking about their publicly accessible caching DNS servers, of which are there are far more than two. I'm not talking about the ones they register with the domain registrar to host their authoritative zone files. That's completely different. > both of which are on the same network. You've just exchanged the load from 13 servers across the Inernet to two servers on a single network. That's not how DNS works. Furthermore, that's the entire role of a cache server.