[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
L3: Google from DC via the Netherlands?
IMHO, off the top of my head, on a weekend where I haven't had enough coffee
3. Anycasted DNS Providers? Not sure how they could fix it, other than
flag certain domains as special, and do something special for them,
but man that smells like a hack.
Anycast is a good thing, but when geo-location style concerns are factored
in maybe they should have region-based anycast addresses.
Interestingly, with Google there could be another similar concern WRT the
IPv6 "trusted tester program" (or whatever the correct name of that is)
where the DNS resolver / organization could have sufficient IPv6
connectivity to qualify, but that capability might not expand to the clients
of / hosts within the service.
>From: Peter Beckman [mailto:beckman at angryox.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:51 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: RE: L3: Google from DC via the Netherlands?
>On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Peter Beckman wrote:
>> I'm OK to that IP as well, but when I query www.google.com, I get
>> multiple IPs, but here are the ones that in in 147:
>> DNS Server IP Route (for me)
>> 220.127.116.11 (tiggee) 18.104.22.168 Amsterdam
>> 22.214.171.124 (opendns) 126.96.36.199 Amsterdam
>> 188.8.131.52 (verizon) 184.108.40.206 San Jose
>> 220.127.116.11 (uu.net/verizon) 18.104.22.168 Washington DC (yay)
> So someone from Google has been helpful in pointing out that the resolver
> IP, not YOUR IP, is the one that determines where you get routed to when
> you make a request for www.google.com. Which is simply due to the way
> things are implemented, which makes sense.
> The problem is, here I am, just some guy, and 99%* of the Internet
> to the same IP(s) regardless of who I ask. But then the other 1%*, and
> this would likely be larger players who are diversified and have systems
> in multiple locations and networks, do something funky and give a
> different address depending on where your DNS server is in the network.
> Then throw in the possibility that YOUR DNS servers are anycasted for
> great justice, or at least for good reliability. Now when you base YOUR
> answer on the caching server's IP address, well, it may not make sense.
> It seems that Tiggee and OpenDNS are anycasted, as is DNS Advantage, as
> well as some root nameservers.
> Thus my problem -- because I ask two free resolving name services, which
> I believe to be anycasted, where to go, I get routed to Amsterdam instead
> of a few miles down the road in Ashburn, VA, and spend 100ms instead of
> 10ms travelling the globe, costing someone more money for Atlantic Ocean
> transit when it was unnecessary.
> SO. Who's problem is this to fix? Is it:
> 1. Me? Am I a dope for using a very reliable but anycasted resolving
> name service? Clearly, I could just use the handy dandy easy to
> remember because I worked there 198.6.1.x, or is that an Internet
> faux pas because technically I wasn't given permission to use it?
> 2. Google? They probably have an interest in making sure my
> to their services are fast and as close to me as possible, but I'm
> probably a minority and not worth the effort of refactoring a giant
> DNS implementation just to fix my one problem, nay, inconvenience.
> 3. Anycasted DNS Providers? Not sure how they could fix it, other than
> flag certain domains as special, and do something special for them,
> but man that smells like a hack.
> 4. My ISP? Does the ISP have to gripe at Google for providing bad
> results that causes traffic to go over expensive lines when it
> have easily gone locally and much more cheaply? I'm assuming that
> sending my traffic over the Atlantic to the Netherlands costs
> SOMEONE more money than if I had gone to a datacenter nearby, both
> physically and network-wise.
> 5. Nobody? Is it just the price the customer (me, who helps generate
> income for Google by using Google and clicking AdWords ads all day)
> pays for the reliability, redundancy and fault tolerance that
> has implemented?
> I think things are working as implemented -- it's not "broken," but it
> seems it could be better. Then again, sometimes better is more expensive
> than the status quo, either in time or money or both.
> NOTE: I do not admit to knowing that 100% of what I've written is fact,
> and if you know better than I, please correct me and show me the light.
> * Numbers have no basis, just a guess.
>Peter Beckman Internet Guy
>beckman at angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/