On 15/03/2018 18:57, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> I dislike the extreme complexity introduced by this non-compliant
> behavior, but I also have a stronger dislike for the social effects:
> after growing used to the peculiarities of a specific Rube Goldberg
> machine, users begin to assume that standards-compliant implementations
> are 'wrong' and should be 'fixed.'  After a while, we wind up with
> de-facto expectations that are deviant from standardized behavior, and
> that's not a good situation for anyone.

The fact that there is no standardized solution to the problem does not mean
that the problem doesn't exist and does not need to be solved.  In fact, the
problem is already standardized in RFC641{8,9} and others.

So yes in theory DNS would be global, IP routing would just work and nobody
would snoop my traffic.  In the real world, DNS resolver lies, IP routing is
non-neutral/firewalled/censored/NAT-ed and your traffic is almost always being
mined for (meta)data. And i haven't mentioned failures yet.

So people may need these vpn/nat traversal/dns failover/isp failover things to
get a baseline service. And when they break, wanting degraded service over no
service is still a valid user choice.

Things that works only in an ideal network may be good enough for good enough
networks, but they are just broken for users with shitty networks.

I would have needed this feature years ago, when shitty networks where the only
things that i had.

_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss

Reply via email to