zlacker

[parent] [thread] 10 comments
1. profmo+(OP)[view] [source] 2019-10-04 06:36:27
> 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.

replies(2): >>cnst+K1 >>vberna+y2
2. cnst+K1[view] [source] 2019-10-04 07:02:11
>>profmo+(OP)
Per https://serverfault.com/a/560059/110020, Google's 8.8.8.8 has had support for `edns0-client-subnet` since at least 2013, so, even if it's only been standardised in 2016, it's been a de-factor standard for quite a while, especially in the internet-technology-years.

Here's an interesting thought — if it's so bad for privacy and isn't necessary for a CDN, does Cloudflare the CDN simply disregard ECS when receiving requests from DNS.Google, or do they take it into account?

replies(4): >>DarkWi+o2 >>profmo+t2 >>darkla+l3 >>dwild+hJ
◧◩
3. DarkWi+o2[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 07:11:11
>>cnst+K1
> de-factor standard

Google isn't the internet, you know?

◧◩
4. profmo+t2[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 07:11:52
>>cnst+K1
> even if it's only been standardised in 2016, it's been a de-factor standard for quite a while, especially in the internet-technology-years.

If archive.is thinks that Internet standards should be adopted so quickly, it's weird that they don't support IPv6 considering it's been a standard since 1998!

Obviously I'm kidding, but only kind of. When it comes to insisting on adopting new standards, edns-client-subnet is a weird hill to die on, especially considering it was always meant to be optional.

> does Cloudflare the CDN simply disregard ECS when receiving requests from DNS.Google, or do they take it into account?

I don't think they have a reason to use it because they use TCP anycast. Looking at https://cachecheck.opendns.com/ they seem to return the same IPs regardless of geography.

replies(1): >>cnst+w4
5. vberna+y2[view] [source] 2019-10-04 07:13:28
>>profmo+(OP)
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.
replies(1): >>profmo+W3
◧◩
6. darkla+l3[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 07:26:12
>>cnst+K1
> if it's so bad for privacy and isn't necessary for a CDN, does Cloudflare the CDN simply disregard ECS when receiving requests from DNS.Google, or do they take it into account?

I don't understand that for various reasons.

1) Privacy is already lost here. If I shout my mobile number on a train with you that's full of people, everyone knows my phone number. If you choose to keep it / use it to call me tomorrow doesn't matter.

2) If Cloudflare can make _better_ decisions based on the information shared by Google, why shouldn't they? As long as it is optional and they don't take their ball and go home^W^W^W^W^W^Wreply with 127.0.0.3 in cases where you don't provide it..

replies(1): >>pixl97+r91
◧◩
7. profmo+W3[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 07:33:49
>>vberna+y2
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.
◧◩◪
8. cnst+w4[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 07:42:33
>>profmo+t2
When you talk about ECS being optional, you also have to keep the context in mind.

* Yes, if you're running a local resolver for your LAN, or have a website on a single server, of course ECS should be optional.

* If you're running a CDN (and archive.today does), or if you're running a public resolver at 100+ POPs, then, no, ECS is not meant to be optional.

replies(1): >>wopian+Hj
◧◩◪◨
9. wopian+Hj[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 11:25:57
>>cnst+w4
"not meant to be optional" is surely a suggestion and not a requirement?

i.e it's not "(...CDN...) then ECS should not be optional"

◧◩
10. dwild+hJ[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 14:39:03
>>cnst+K1
> If it's so bad for privacy and isn't necessary for a CDN, does Cloudflare the CDN simply disregard ECS when receiving requests from DNS.Google, or do they take it into account?

It's not because it can be bad for privacy that you can't use it for good. The feature exist for a good reason, it's valid, it doesn't change anything to the fact though that it can be use for bad reasons too, which is why you want to remove it. In the means time, there's no reasons not to use it for good reason while it's still there.

◧◩◪
11. pixl97+r91[view] [source] [discussion] 2019-10-04 17:17:33
>>darkla+l3
1) probabilities. No one is likely to keep that information on the train. Unless of course AT&T runs the train in which they tell you they will record everything you say and use it for marketing or what ever other purposes.
[go to top]