Re: Yet another Quadruple DNS?

[Matt Hoppes <mattlists () rivervalleyinternet net>]

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 don’t just query the root servers directly?  Or at least have that option?

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 11:05, Mehmet Akcin <mehmet () akcin net> wrote:
>
> https://1.1.1.1 link has details of the service.
>
> No official announcement from APNIC (though Geoff replied my direct email
> inquiry privately)
>
> I don’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 am
> just suprised to see lack of transparency about this allocation rather than
> anything else.
>
> World needs more services like this to make internet better and safer, i
> don’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 () gmail com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:08 PM,  <nop () 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 service,
> > and the RIR could potentially allocate from any block under their control
> > 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 1.1.1.1
> > % [whois.apnic.net]
> > % Whois data copyright terms    http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html
> >
> > % Information related to '1.1.1.0 - 1.1.1.255'
> > % Abuse contact for '1.1.1.0 - 1.1.1.255' is 'abuse () apnic net'
> >
> > inetnum:        1.1.1.0 - 1.1.1.255
> > 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 () cloudflare com
> > remarks:        ---------------
> > last-modified:  2018-03-30T01:51:28Z
> > source:         APNIC
> >
> > .....
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -JH