[as112-ops] AS112 nameservers as NS for parked domains

[Jonathan Stewart]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Aleksi Suhonen <as112-ops at trex.fi> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> William wrote:
>
>> I recall seeing a posting either here in this list or in another
>>> list about someone registering or parking a domain by using the
>>> AS112 anycast addresses as their nameservers.
>>>
>>> Can anyone think of reasons why this is or isn't a good idea both
>>> from the perspective of the domain name operator and the AS112
>>> operator?
>>>
>>
> I don't think it really matters. The whole purpose of AS112 is to be the
> sink for unwanted DNS traffic. It shouldn't matter *why* said DNS traffic
> is unwanted.
>
I suppose that's true.  If AS112 takes unwanted DNS traffic, then even
valid domain name queries could hit the node, and a rational response would
be served.


> That being said, we run an AS112 node at an IXP, where we have virtually
> unlimited bandwidth for it. I'm sure someone who's announcing AS112 to
> their paid transits might see the issue differently.
>
Same here, lots of traffic doesn't bother me at all.

>
> I think one goal should be to get AS112 nodes peered with tier1 operators
> too, thus abolishing the need for transit... ;-)
>
Now that would be clever. ;-)  But it also makes me think i could announce
our AS112 node to our transit providers--currently we're announcing only to
the IX.



-- 
     Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/as112-ops/attachments/20141201/c1eb8ea6/attachment.html>