On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:54:06PM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 22:37:00 +0000 Tyler Durden virii@enn.lu wrote:
All our nodes are using a local DNS caching server and only use google as a fallback.
I was also using google just as a fallback; I've now changed my node to just use a local resolver, with no fallback.
Thank you!
Neither the email from nusenu nor the documentation pointed to actually says which of these options is preferable. If you (nusenu) are looking to reduce the exits using these resolvers, I'd suggest explicitly also saying to not use them even as a fallback after a local resolver (assuming that's what you want). Maybe you had intended this to come across with the existing text, but I don't think it's obvious enough.
But isn't that what the subject line says? And the original email contains:
The goal is to be bellow the following thresholds within one year: not have any single remoteAS entity control more than 10% exit capacity reduce the overall remoteAS share to bellow 20% exit capacity
Maybe it would help clarifying that almost any use of the above mentioned Open DNS resolvers qualifies as using a remoteAS (therefore contributing to its control of exit capacity) - even if that resolver is configured as a fallback.
Thanks again for adjusting your configuration.