Re: [tor-relays] lets stop using central big DNS resolvers (Google, Level3, OpenDNS, Quad9, Cloudflare)

["Nathaniel Suchy (Lunorian)" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know how everyone else feels about this - rather than using a
secondary resolver in the event Unbound fails - why not let the query
fail and the user have to try again? Is there any reason to risk letting
a third party resolver possibly log exit node DNS queries?

nusenu:
> 
> 
> Andrew Deason:
>> An operator may think they're not "using" google's dns because they're
>> pointed at localhost first, and their local resolver is working, so they
>> shouldn't normally be using the fallback so it doesn't matter. Obviously
>> that's not true, otherwise such relays wouldn't be identified in that
>> list :) I imagine it's not _as_ bad as depending on google's dns first,
>> but maybe that is an insignificant difference.
> 
> yes there appear to be rather different interpretations as to when
> secondary resolvers (lines coming after the first nameserver line in /etc/resolv.conf) 
> are actually contacted.
> So far I can tell it does not only depend on the functioning of the primary
> resolver, but yes I believe it makes a significant difference if you use
> a resolver in the first or secondary position (unless you enabled round-robin).
> 
> Next time I measure, I aim to better differentiate what relays use what resolver as primary
> or secondary resolver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays