>> For user privacy concern, we can revise ECS(114.240.0.0/24 >> <http://114.240.0.0/24>) => EIL (CHINA, BEIJING, UNICOM)，give a >> tradeoff between privacy and precise. > > Nice, this sounds like appropriate tradeoff to me. > > > Side-effect of this is that it removes need to maintain copies of > various Geo-IP databases all over the place, which is an improvement to > operational practice.
I disagree. Unless you get the clients to implement EIL, then you’ve simply just pushed the need for geo-ip mapping from CDN to DNS provider. Of course one would assume that an ISP already has this mapping, but 3rd party DNS would not. So either they have to build the mappings, maintain a copy of some Geo-IP database, or hope that all the clients have it implemented. With 3rd party DNS carrying double digit percentages of traffic (iirc ~15% total from 2015 OARC presentation), that’s not something to just brush away. — Brian
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
