On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:54:06PM -0500, Andrew Deason wrote: > On Thu, 10 May 2018 22:37:00 +0000 > Tyler Durden <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
