4 ms·

Seems reasonable. Those servers were never intended for widespread public use, so they may as well make back some funds for upkeep, and maybe encourage some mor

by skymt 13y ago

Seems reasonable. Those servers were never intended for widespread public use, so they may as well make back some funds for upkeep, and maybe encourage some more-technical users to switch away. Here's a blog post with some background on these servers: http://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/ http://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/

oasisbob 13y ago
I'm fairly sure that the "4.2.2.x was never meant to be public" line is a myth. Though the NANOG thread cited in that post is good historical background, it is contradicted by more modern sources: "[...] DNS infrastructure is largely split into two types; open (public) and closed (private). Open DNS is provided by companies like OpenDNS, Google and Level 3. You can use it wherever you are on the Internet with no restrictions or authentication required." - Mark Taylor, VP at Level3 http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of-cdns-and-dns/ http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of-cdn... I can't find any cite where anyone else who I would consider a reliable source in the DNS world (Vixie, &c) repeat this claim. To the contrary, Level 3 is often grouped with Google, OpenDNS and others in discussions of open public resolvers [1][2][3], and those in the know never seem to speak up and say otherwise in these discussions. That being said, I have absolutely no personal knowledge on any of this. [1] http://www.maawg.org/system/files/Fergie_DNS_Open_Resolver_MAAWG_India_SANOG.pdf http://www.maawg.org/system/files/Fergie_DNS_Open_Resolver_M... [2] http://markmail.org/message/gh7f2wvfbn5mpvuq http://markmail.org/message/gh7f2wvfbn5mpvuq [3] http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/#4234 http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/...
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Presumably it takes non-0 costs to maintain 4.2.2.x DNS servers. While I'd want to believe Google and L3 just try to help out the public at large with free DNS services, I suspect they are not doing that just purely out of altruism.
  - fragmede 13y ago
    Google's motivations are long-range, but simple - more ad dollars. Faster DNS means more people using the web (rather than give up in disgust - and if don't believe that happens, let me introduce you to comcasts's DNS servers...); more people using the web means more page view which means more ad revenue. So no, definitely not altruistic.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      I just thought it was to track user actions via DNS - they can see which sites you visit without needing tracking bugs on those sites. Better profiling means better ad serving for Google ... profit.
      - eli 13y ago
        They specifically promise not to do anything like that.
      - arantius 13y ago
        https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy?hl=en https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy?hl=en "We built Google Public DNS to make the web faster and to retain as little information about usage as we could, while still being able to detect and fix problems. Google Public DNS does not permanently store personally identifiable information."
inglor 13y ago
I'm surprised Google hasn't done it yet
gwu78 13y ago
"Those servers were never intended for widespread public use, ..." What is the test for "intended for widespread public use"? If a server is configured to accept queries from any IP address, can we conclude anything about "intent"? If the server admin does nothing to stop widespread public use (which is trivial to do of course), can we conclude anything about intent? Is there some other clue we need to look for? Under your reasoning, it's "reasonable" to provide open resolvers and hijack NXDOMAIN responses, so long as there is no "intent" for widespread public use. Interesting.

by skymt 13y ago

oasisbob 13y ago

I'm fairly sure that the "4.2.2.x was never meant to be public" line is a myth. Though the NANOG thread cited in that post is good historical background, it is contradicted by more modern sources: "[...] DNS infrastructure is largely split into two types; open (public) and closed (private). Open DNS is provided by companies like OpenDNS, Google and Level 3. You can use it wherever you are on the Internet with no restrictions or authentication required." - Mark Taylor, VP at Level3 http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of-cdns-and-dns/ http://blog.level3.com/level-3-network/a-flawed-study-of-cdn... I can't find any cite where anyone else who I would consider a reliable source in the DNS world (Vixie, &c) repeat this claim. To the contrary, Level 3 is often grouped with Google, OpenDNS and others in discussions of open public resolvers [1][2][3], and those in the know never seem to speak up and say otherwise in these discussions. That being said, I have absolutely no personal knowledge on any of this. [1] http://www.maawg.org/system/files/Fergie_DNS_Open_Resolver_MAAWG_India_SANOG.pdf http://www.maawg.org/system/files/Fergie_DNS_Open_Resolver_M... [2] http://markmail.org/message/gh7f2wvfbn5mpvuq http://markmail.org/message/gh7f2wvfbn5mpvuq [3] http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/#4234 http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/...

rdtsc 13y ago
Presumably it takes non-0 costs to maintain 4.2.2.x DNS servers. While I'd want to believe Google and L3 just try to help out the public at large with free DNS services, I suspect they are not doing that just purely out of altruism.
- fragmede 13y ago
  Google's motivations are long-range, but simple - more ad dollars. Faster DNS means more people using the web (rather than give up in disgust - and if don't believe that happens, let me introduce you to comcasts's DNS servers...); more people using the web means more page view which means more ad revenue. So no, definitely not altruistic.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    I just thought it was to track user actions via DNS - they can see which sites you visit without needing tracking bugs on those sites. Better profiling means better ad serving for Google ... profit.
    - eli 13y ago
      They specifically promise not to do anything like that.
    - arantius 13y ago
      https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy?hl=en https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy?hl=en "We built Google Public DNS to make the web faster and to retain as little information about usage as we could, while still being able to detect and fix problems. Google Public DNS does not permanently store personally identifiable information."

inglor 13y ago

I'm surprised Google hasn't done it yet

gwu78 13y ago

"Those servers were never intended for widespread public use, ..." What is the test for "intended for widespread public use"? If a server is configured to accept queries from any IP address, can we conclude anything about "intent"? If the server admin does nothing to stop widespread public use (which is trivial to do of course), can we conclude anything about intent? Is there some other clue we need to look for? Under your reasoning, it's "reasonable" to provide open resolvers and hijack NXDOMAIN responses, so long as there is no "intent" for widespread public use. Interesting.