josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
Wed Mar 22 13:49:04 UTC 2023
Try asking dns-operations at lists.dns-oarc.net for someone at CloudFlare.
For what it's worth, it works for me. I'm in Troy, OH.
C:\Users\jluthman>dig www.moi.gov.cy @22.214.171.124 +short
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:43 AM Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 15:26, Matt Harris <matt at netfire.net> wrote:
>> When something is provided at no cost, I don't see how it can be
>> unethical unless they are explicitly lying about the ways in which they use
>> the data they gather.
>> Ultimately, you're asking them to provide a costly service (support for
>> end-users, the vast majority of whom will not ask informed, intelligent
>> questions like the members of this list would be able to, but would still
>> demand the same level of support) on top of a service they are already
>> providing at no cost. That's both unrealistic and unnecessary. There's an
>> exceedingly simple solution, here, after all: if you don't like their
>> service or it isn't working for you as an end-user, don't use it.
> Thank you for the philosophical perspective, but currently my interest is
> not to debate merits or lack thereof in laissez-faire economics.
> The problem is, a large number of people will use 126.96.36.199, 188.8.131.52 or
> 184.108.40.206 despite my or your position about it. There is incentive for
> providers to provide it 'for free', as it adds value to their products as
> users are compensating providers with the data.
> Occasionally things don't work and when they do not, we need a way to
> inform the provider 'hey you have a problem'. You could be anywhere in this
> chain, with no ability to impact any of the decisions.
> I know there is a real problem, I know real users are impacted, I know
> almost none of them will have the ability to understand why there is a
> problem or remediate it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG