[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Yet another Quadruple DNS?
Well that isnt optimal for root servers. Every cpe querying root would be
Though we can copy root zone into recursive servers (not via DNS) and serve
from CPEs that way.
I think the real problem is restictions of networks who wonâ??t let you run
this on your devices.
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 8:18 AM Matt Hoppes <
mattlists at rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
> Do we? (Need more services like this?)
> Why not just implement recursive cache severs on end user routers? Why
> does an end user CPE need to query one or two specific DNS servers?
> Recursive servers like PowerDNS are extremely simple and light weight.
> Is there a legitimate reason things donâ??t just query the root servers
> directly? Or at least have that option?
> > On Apr 1, 2018, at 11:05, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote:
> > https://18.104.22.168 link has details of the service.
> > No official announcement from APNIC (though Geoff replied my direct email
> > inquiry privately)
> > I donâ??t know why this prefix was handed over to any company for a service
> > without public consultation but again this may or may not be required. I
> > just suprised to see lack of transparency about this allocation rather
> > anything else.
> > World needs more services like this to make internet better and safer, i
> > donâ??t think it is important what IPs are , ie: opendns , they might not
> > have fancy ip block but they get the job done!(well done!)
> > Mehmet
> >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:06 PM Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:08 PM, <nop at imap.cc> wrote:
> >>> From what I can tell, this has not been "allocated" (probably closer to
> >> a LOA)?
> >>> All contacts and maintainers on the inetnum object are still APNIC's,
> >> Cloudflare
> >>> does not have free access to do whatever they want here.
> >> Did you ask WHOIS? Looks like the /24 is Portable-Assigned to
> >> a joint project.
> >> I don't know that APNIC is necessarily required to make a public
> >> consultation;.
> >> If it was from an ARIN block; ARIN wouldn't have to "ask the public
> >> either"...
> >> the Number Resource Policy allows for /24 micro-allocations for
> >> critical infrastructure, which exactly describes the nature of an
> >> anycasted
> >> /24 for the service IP of a shared open DNS recursive resolver
> >> and the RIR could potentially allocate from any block under their
> >> that
> >> were deemed most suitable for the critical infrastructure.
> >> Then again, maybe APNIC made a consultation at their February meeting
> >> in Nepal?
> >> One thing i'm sure is they wouldn't have to ask NANOG's permission.
> >> $ whois 22.214.171.124
> >> % [whois.apnic.net]
> >> % Whois data copyright terms
> >> % Information related to '126.96.36.199 - 188.8.131.52'
> >> % Abuse contact for '184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11' is 'abuse at apnic.net'
> >> inetnum: 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124
> >> netname: APNIC-LABS
> >> descr: APNIC and Cloudflare DNS Resolver project
> >> descr: Routed globally by AS13335/Cloudflare
> >> descr: Research prefix for APNIC Labs
> >> country: AU
> >> org: ORG-ARAD1-AP
> >> admin-c: AR302-AP
> >> tech-c: AR302-AP
> >> mnt-by: APNIC-HM
> >> mnt-routes: MAINT-AU-APNIC-GM85-AP
> >> mnt-irt: IRT-APNICRANDNET-AU
> >> status: ASSIGNED PORTABLE
> >> remarks: ---------------
> >> remarks: All Cloudflare abuse reporting can be done via
> >> remarks: resolver-abuse at cloudflare.com
> >> remarks: ---------------
> >> last-modified: 2018-03-30T01:51:28Z
> >> source: APNIC
> >> .....
> >> --
> >> -JH