zlacker

>>stargr+(OP)
I am no expert by any means. However, I strongly suspect EDNS is not actually needed to run a CDN. There’s a lot of approaches to balancing load and distributing traffic. An example of another approach would be using anycast IPs.

I’m also surprised that traffic from Cloudflare DNS users caused any significant problem. Was it really that much traffic?

>>jchw+64
> However, I strongly suspect EDNS is not actually needed to run a CDN.

It's not. The proof is that CDNs existed long before edns-client-subnet was introduced. All it does is allow the CDN's DNS servers to return the most optimal A/AAAA records for the client. But the worst that should happen without it is you get sent to a more distant CDN server, and the content loads more slowly.

The fact that archive.is somehow suffers without this feature (which, btw, wasn't standardized until 2016) suggests they're doing something really, really odd. If I were them, I'd focus on making my system more robust, rather than demanding the rest of the Internet adopt a relatively young, optional DNS extension.

>>profmo+F4
EDNS client subnet exists since there are large public DNS servers. Google did implement it very early on 8.8.8.8 (DNS operators had to request them to enable it when querying their authoritative servers) because it is needed to correctly operate a CDN.

>>vberna+d7
I know why it exists, and it's nice to have, but what I'm saying is there's no reason a site should completely fail to load without it. The worst case should be you just get routed to a more distant cache, and the site is slower. The same as what used to happen before edns-client-subnet existed.