4 ms·
Personally I think that the only reasonable choice for DNS is to use a local caching dns like unbound or dnscache.
by dfc 12y ago
Personally I think that the only reasonable choice for DNS is to use a local caching dns like unbound or dnscache.
- bigbugbag 12y agoI concur, but this raises a quite serious issue due to the suboptimal DNS is designed. If it was a common and global practice and everyone on the the Internet ran his/her own local unbound dns cache, how would the root DNS servers fare with the additional load? A better solution would be to have a distributed p2p DNS instead of the current one.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago> If it was a common and global practice and everyone on the the Internet ran his/her own local unbound dns cache, how would the root DNS servers fare with the additional load? Anycast solved this ages ago. Also, the TTL on most TLDs is 172800 seconds, so you'll have NS entries cached for the 'com' 'org' 'gov' etc. GTLD servers almost immediately and then never bother the root servers again for two days.
- justizin 12y agoDNS is designed to keep the root server load relatively low, and before there were "ISPs", yes, DNS was designed for every "network" to have at least one DNS server. Before that, you see, everyone just exchanged copies of a massive /etc/hosts file. Anyway, I am totally all for a distributed p2p DNS, at least as a replacement for root servers.
- simoncion 12y ago> Anyway, I am totally all for a distributed p2p DNS DNS is a distributed, p2p system. The ability to add records that can be globally retrieved is not ad-hoc, but you didn't mention that in your requirement. </obligatory_pedantry>
- rakoo 12y agoWhat we should use are local DNS resolvers such as dnsmasq [0], and share the answers on the LAN. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnsmasq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnsmasq