Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

Fri Feb 11 15:10:36 UTC 2022

>
> I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG.
> Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often ignored by the hardware
> targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make
> business sense.
>

To be fair, I don't think this is unique to this community. Plenty of
conversations on the IETF lists that are fundamentally the same. (
Proposals to change X or implement standard Y to solve something that is
already solvable with current tech and standards. ) Really it's just the
complexity of the existing solution that's different. :)

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:51 AM james.cutler at consultant.com <
james.cutler at consultant.com> wrote:

> On Feb 11, 2022, at 8:33 AM, Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>
> The prediciate assumption that "pinging one destination is a valid check
> that my internet works' is INCORRECT. There is no magical unicorn that
> could be built that could make that true, and 'they're gonna do it anyways'
> is a poor excuse to even consider it.
>
>
> The predicate assumption that unsuccessful pinging one destination is a
> valid check that my internet DOES NOT work' is  ALSO INCORRECT. Still no
> magical unicorn.
>
> I am disappointed but not surprised to see this discussion on NANOG.
> Encouraging Users to use a tool (that is often ignored by the hardware
> targeted) by providing a non-revenue-creating special target does not make
> business sense.
>
> An allied issue is educating ‘Users’ about traceroute AKA sequential ping
> with TTL progression:
>
>
>    -  Seeing missing or excessively long traceroute results from
>    intermediate nodes does NOT indicate a real problem, especially when the
>    target node is reachable with acceptable delay.
>
>
> I’ve lost count of my replies on user forums explaining this issue, even
> to otherwise well educated users.
>
> To be blunt, browsing to amazon.com, apple.com or another vendor site is
> a simple and easy to teach Internet aliveness check and, at least, offers
> the chance for the targeted vendor site to receive revenue from sales. I
> have no crisis of conscience from clicking an vendor shortcut for a basic
> end-to-end Internet functional test. Or for teaching a User to do the same.
> This meets the business purpose locally and requires no $pecial effort from
> Users, network providers, or target systems. This precludes memorization of
> IP addresses by end Users thus reducing the offered load from the likes of
> excessive ping 8.8.8.8.
>
> I would expect NANOG members to have favorite ping target addresses based
> on their environment, e.g., default router and a few designated targets.
> These are useful for manual debugging but, as mentioned previously, are not
> suitable as singular input to network monitoring.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220211/a119bf3a/attachment.html>