zlacker

>>jahnu+(OP)
amazing how cloudflare has framed this anticompetitve move as a privacy thing.

it doesn't matter if your dns resolver leaks part of your ip address to archive.is's dns servers when you're about to connect to archive.is from your ip address anyway. the only thing dropping the edns client subnet does is prevent services you use from giving you a server that's closer to you when you do the dns lookup. this performance issue, of course, does not affect sites using cloudflare.

>>dimens+36
Just so we’re on the same page: Cloudflare decided globally not to include client IP in the EDNS data. Then archive.is decided to block Cloudflare’s resolvers from getting accurate records for their site.

To circumvent this, Cloudflare would have to reverse their global stance or make a special exception to satisfy archive.is.

It’s unclear how we could draw “anticompetitive” from this.

>>akerl_+I8
He didn't mean anticompetitive towards Archive.is, he meant with all content providers in general. By making them all less capable of delivering low-latency content, it makes Cloudfare appear better by comparison. Not sure how likely that would be but I'm pretty sure that was OP's meaning.