[186799] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Jan 4 17:48:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaamCv=ukpRASvOhqa1=8zcvN1X50Cqn1SQ1x3bHY0W2-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:48:06 -0500
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1451947686_81471P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:23:20 -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
> https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq?hl=en
>
> there I asked jeeves for ya!
> > So in how many of the 196 or so extant countries does 8.8.8.8 resolve to
> > a host which, when it sends a query up the chain, appears to be in the
> > same country as the machine that made the original query?
With 43 subnets for servers and only 13 unique airport codes, the conclusion
is that without additional fun and games, locating based on the DNS for 8.8.8.8
will be incorrect for *most* countries. Probably gets the continent right.
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 14:17:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Further, 8.8.8.8 actually fully supports EDNS0 Client Subnet capability, so
> if the geo-IP balancer in question wants, they can eliminate the failure mode
> you are describing in that case.
Which only helps for people using 8.8.8.8. Client Subnet does help the issue,
but it doesn't actually fix it until support is near ubiquitous across
intermediate nameservers that have clients in other geographic locations...
(I believe that the fact that Google found a need to create EDNS0 Client
Subnet *at all* is proof that using the DNS address for localization is
problematic...)
And again - it's still something that needs work upstream to support, and
you *still* have to deal with the case where the intermediate DNS server
doesn't do Client Subnet.
> I say slightly pessimistic because there aren’t all that many 3XX responses
> being reported.
OK, that's a slightly different kettle of fish :) To the nearest 10% or
so, how many are answering with a 3xx of any sort?
--==_Exmh_1451947686_81471P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=frR6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1451947686_81471P--
