nanog mailing list archives
Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging
From: Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 21:16:14 -0600 (CST)
What irked me today was an equipment manufacturer. I found out because Google had some issues handling ICMP to their DNS resolvers today and some of my devices started spazzing out. There's no reason this manufacturer doesn't just setup a variety their own servers to handle this, other than being lazy. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Delany" <k3f () november emu st> To: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:13:30 PM Subject: Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging On 08Feb22, Mike Hammett allegedly wrote:
Some people need a clue by four and I'm looking to build my collection of them.
"Google services, including Google Public DNS, are not designed as ICMP network testing services"
Hard to disagree with "their network, their rules", but we're talking about an entrenched, pervasive, Internet-wide behaviorial issue. My guess is that making ping/ICMP less reliable to the extent that it becomes unusable wont change fundamental behavior. Rather, it'll make said "pingers" reach for another tool that does more or less the same thing with more or less as little extra effort as possible on their part. And what might such an alternate tool do? My guess is one which SYN/ACKs various popular TCP ports (say 22, 25, 80, 443) and maybe sends a well-formed UDP packet to a few popular DNS ports (say 53 and 119). Let's call this command "nmap -sn" with a few tweaks, shall we? After all, it's no big deal to the pinger if their reachability command now exchanges 10-12 packets with resource intensive destination ports instead of a couple of packets to lightweight destinations. I'll bet most pingers will neither know nor care, especially if their next-gen ping works more consistently than the old one. So. Question. Will making ping/ICMP mostly useless for home-gamers and lazy network admins change internet behaviour for the better? Or will it have unintended consequences such as an evolutionary adaptation by the tools resulting in yet more unwanted traffic which is even harder to eliminate? Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging, (continued)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Grant Taylor via NANOG (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Peter Beckman (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Delany (Feb 08)
- RE: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mike Lewinski via NANOG (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Ross Tajvar (Feb 08)
- RE: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mike Lewinski via NANOG (Feb 11)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging sronan (Feb 11)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 12)
- RE: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mike Lewinski via NANOG (Feb 12)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 12)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mike Hammett (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Feb 09)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Matthew Walster (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Grant Taylor via NANOG (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Stephane Bortzmeyer (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Mark Tinka (Feb 08)
- Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging Stephane Bortzmeyer (Feb 08)
