Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

Wed Feb 9 11:02:34 UTC 2022

Anyone willing to write a icmp(8/0) concatenation/concentration/proxy tool ? That can be deployed at the provider edge ?

Catch all the packets !!!

-- 
 J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 21:18, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> What irked me today was an equipment manufacturer. I found out because Google had some issues handling ICMP to their DNS resolvers today and some of my devices started spazzing out.
> 
> There's no reason this manufacturer doesn't just setup a variety their own servers to handle this, other than being lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> From: "Mark Delany" <k3f at november.emu.st>
> To: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 5:13:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging
> 
> On 08Feb22, Mike Hammett allegedly wrote:
> 
> > Some people need a clue by four and I'm looking to build my collection of them. 
> 
> > "Google services, including Google Public DNS, are not designed as ICMP network testing services"
> 
> Hard to disagree with "their network, their rules", but we're talking about an entrenched,
> pervasive, Internet-wide behaviorial issue.
> 
> My guess is that making ping/ICMP less reliable to the extent that it becomes unusable
> wont change fundamental behavior. Rather, it'll make said "pingers" reach for another tool
> that does more or less the same thing with more or less as little extra effort as possible
> on their part.
> 
> And what might such an alternate tool do? My guess is one which SYN/ACKs various popular
> TCP ports (say 22, 25, 80, 443) and maybe sends a well-formed UDP packet to a few popular
> DNS ports (say 53 and 119). Let's call this command "nmap -sn" with a few tweaks, shall
> we?
> 
> After all, it's no big deal to the pinger if their reachability command now exchanges
> 10-12 packets with resource intensive destination ports instead of a couple of packets to
> lightweight destinations. I'll bet most pingers will neither know nor care, especially if
> their next-gen ping works more consistently than the old one.
> 
> So. Question. Will making ping/ICMP mostly useless for home-gamers and lazy network admins
> change internet behaviour for the better? Or will it have unintended consequences such as
> an evolutionary adaptation by the tools resulting in yet more unwanted traffic which is
> even harder to eliminate?
> 
> 
> Mark.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220209/7b0d8317/attachment.html>