Re: systemd-resolved fallback DNS servers: usability vs. GDPR

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/26/21 12:10 PM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 25.02.21 um 10:51 schrieb Florian Weimer:
>>
>> Why do you think that?
>>
>> Caching DNS server availability is a commonly requested feature even in
>> data center deployments.  The way Fedora currently implements its DNS
>> client, it more or less defeats the built-in high availability mechanism
>> of DNS, and complex network-based mitigations are needed (like using
>> anycast DNS resolvers).
> 
> If you run a server farm with mailservers, you usually have antispam
> services like spamhaus enabled.
> 
> If one server from an ip adressrange is using spamhaus, spamhaus is fine
> with it.
> If a hundret ips from that ip addressrange ask spamhaus, you get blocked
> quite fast.

Nobody here requested independent iteration from root servers, right? If
a machine is caching itself, it would reduce the load to upstream
resolver. If local cache forwards cache misses to central DNS cache
configured by network administrators, no blocking should ever happen.
systemd-resolved or dnsmasq are incapable of independent resolving, they
always need upstream iterative resolver doing work for them. Unbound is
capable of doing that, but that was not proposed by nobody. Forwarders
usage is always expected by default. It might depend on how to choose
them only.

Local cache is especially useful on DNS intensive service, which SMTP
with various spam filters tends to be. Spamhaus wants prevention of
unconfigured unbound or bind caches, which would without additional
configuration iterate from root servers. Just add forwarders to shared
network cache.
> 
> The cache on the server itself, is of limit use here. Thats why you use
> a central dns cache on one server,
> so anyone benefits from the caching and spamhaus is happy : win-win.
> 
> On a desktop / laptop you won't have such a scenario in the first place,
> here local caching makes more sense.
Multi layer caching is supported by DNS. Having local cache on the host
does not prevent caching also by a big DNS cache for whole network. On
the contrary. It is a bit suppressed by DNS over TLS/HTTPS, but default
configuration still should obtain DNS from DHCP/autoconfiguration. On
servers, clients, VMs and containers.
> 
> best regards,
> Marius Schwarz-- 
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux