how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1 | reply to espaeth
Re: Keep in mind... said by espaeth:The root servers only serve up a handful of records, things like ".com" ".net" ".org" ".us" and other top level domains so this really has nothing to do with DNS redirection at all. no, it doesn't, but its more than likely a pr/image thing. comcast wants to display the outward projection that they are faster/better/more reliable than opendns. as a result, people may be more likely to stay with comcast dns servers/switch from 3rd party dns back to comcast. combine the influx with a lack of understanding about dns redirection and you have a new cash flow.
but then again, i'm pretty cynical.
q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| said by tubbynet:comcast wants to display the outward projection that they are faster/better/more reliable than opendns. as a result, people may be more likely to stay with comcast dns servers/switch from 3rd party dns back to comcast. combine the influx with a lack of understanding about dns redirection and you have a new cash flow. The Comcast DNS servers are more likely to have better returns for sites that used DNS-based global load balancing like Akamai, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Limelight (Netflix streaming), etc.
There are a number of ISPs doing DNS redirection now, but I still give Comcast the nod for offering up an entire set of DNS servers that are redirection-free. »dns.comcast.net/dns-ip-addresses2.php
Sure, that doesn't help people who simply take their IP's DNS servers as assigned by DHCP, but I'd argue the majority of those folks are the group of users least affected by DNS redirection. | |
tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
1 edit | said by espaeth:The Comcast DNS servers are more likely to have better returns for sites that used DNS-based global load balancing like Akamai, Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Limelight (Netflix streaming), etc. on this, i almost have no doubt. i attribute a lot of cdn speed/transfer issues to improper dns glb*. i'm not saying there aren't benefits.
however, in the wake of the dns-poisoning scare several months back, how many people blindly switched to opendns because other people said it was "better"? if comcast can put out enough pr that says that they are better than opendns (and can provide the modicum of proof required to convince the average internet user), those users may switch again to using comcast hosted dns (more than likely by accepting the dns servers from dhcp). as such, you have a new group of converts that will be affected by your dns redirection.
is it a step in the right direction? sure. comcast is being open and transparent about a lot of their network changes. however, i'm tempted to believe that they see an additional income value in doing this as well.
q
*[edit] i realize that my wording of improper dns glb is partially incorrect. i am leaving the current wording with the caveat that it is improper due to the poor result return from the query from dns, not due to an improper design in the overal dns glb.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|
