Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

["J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

Huh


-- 

J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.






> On Feb 11, 2022, at 09:10, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>
> I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG. Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often 
> ignored by the hardware targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make business sense.
>
> To be fair, I don't think this is unique to this community. Plenty of conversations on the IETF lists that are 
> fundamentally the same. ( Proposals to change X or implement standard Y to solve something that is already solvable 
> with current tech and standards. ) Really it's just the complexity of the existing solution that's different. :) 
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:51 AM james.cutler () consultant com <james.cutler () consultant com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 8:33 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
> > The prediciate assumption that "pinging one destination is a valid check that my internet works' is INCORRECT. There 
> > is no magical unicorn that could be built that could make that true, and 'they're gonna do it anyways' is a poor 
> > excuse to even consider it. 
>
> The predicate assumption that unsuccessful pinging one destination is a valid check that my internet DOES NOT work' 
> is  ALSO INCORRECT. Still no magical unicorn. 
>
> I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG. Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often 
> ignored by the hardware targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make business sense.
>
> An allied issue is educating ‘Users’ about traceroute AKA sequential ping with TTL progression:
>
>       •  Seeing missing or excessively long traceroute results from intermediate nodes does NOT indicate a real 
> problem, especially when the target node is reachable with acceptable delay. 
>
> I’ve lost count of my replies on user forums explaining this issue, even to otherwise well educated users. 
>
> To be blunt, browsing to amazon.com, apple.com or another vendor site is a simple and easy to teach Internet 
> aliveness check and, at least, offers the chance for the targeted vendor site to receive revenue from sales. I have 
> no crisis of conscience from clicking an vendor shortcut for a basic end-to-end Internet functional test. Or for 
> teaching a User to do the same. This meets the business purpose locally and requires no $pecial effort from Users, 
> network providers, or target systems. This precludes memorization of IP addresses by end Users thus reducing the 
> offered load from the likes of excessive ping 8.8.8.8. 
>
> I would expect NANOG members to have favorite ping target addresses based on their environment, e.g., default router 
> and a few designated targets. These are useful for manual debugging but, as mentioned previously, are not suitable as 
> singular input to network monitoring.