Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

bunnycdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#81

Post by jerf »

RL_Quine wrote: post #69
tgv wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a moment to talk about The Great Saver, uMatrix?

Disabling a lot of the bloat makes random pages break, which is an even worse experience.

But it is compensated for by the sites that actually work better when you strip their non-local JS from them. I've lost track of the number of times I've come to the HN comments and read about how unreadable the page was due to all the popups and ads and modal dialogs when I just read the text. You're absolutely not wrong that some sites get worse, but it's not one-sided in that direction.

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#82

Post by svacko »

Eikon wrote: post #21
frereubu wrote: post #16

We have a client who insisted on using a .house domain. It kept triggering alerts on our uptime monitoring service with DNS errors, so we had to reduce the sensitivity of that specific test. We also had a client who had to change their TLD from .healthcare to .org.uk because (a) people were confused because they didn't understand that there are all these new TLDs and kept adding .co.uk, .org etc and (b) some NHS syst…

> I still advise clients to use www rather than a plain domain name for websites And you should. Not only can’t you put CNAME at the zone APEX without doing nasty tricks but not doing so is also a security risk when dealing with cookies.

one of my DNS hosting providers supports ANAME record to provide CNAME record for apex/naked domain https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-01.html - found just today trying to configure static website hosting on S3 & Cloudfront

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#84

Post by brianzelip »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #80
st_goliath wrote: post #54

Friendly reminder for people on HN reading this: I know this is actually quite interesting, but before you start worrying about the latency of the name servers of your TLD, you might want to do something about the metric ton of JavaScript on your site and the 25 different 3rd party servers from which you side load most of it. Also those 6 additional servers from which you load a bunch of TTF fonts. Especially if all…

To add to this, one thing people tend to forget is that html has a dns prefetch option for offsite js you absolutely must have. (rel=dns-prefetch) Of course I agree with goliath, which is why I try very hard to write pure html5+css3 with no JS unless absolutely necessary. It is very rarely necessary. When it is, very rarely do I need one of the crazy frameworks, pure js works pretty well. Beyond that, this is why adb…

Thanks for the tip. I've heard about it, but never saw anything about it. Here is a bit of info on dsn-prefetch, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe...

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#85

Post by svacko »

867-5309 wrote: post #50
Eikon wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only put CNAME records at the zone APEX if there is no other records kinds as a CNAME is supposed to be a synonymous. If you had records such as: @ IN A 127.0.0.1 @ IN CNAME example.org. The server could not answer anything sensible as you now just introduced an ambiguity. The "nasty tricks" I was referring to is basically records such as ALIAS that you may find at some providers. The way they work is roughly…

unless I am hosting separate sites/IPs on subdomains, or have a complex cookie situation, I think the www. prefix seems vestigial/legacy and completely unneeded. I am actually in the opposite camp of not including it at all and redirecting to non-www. it sounds awfully ambiguous in speech ("double-u double-u double-u dot", "all the double-us dot", "dub dub dub dot", etc.) and most times multiplies the syllabic length…

The article https://bjornjohansen.no/www-or-not (2017) persuaded me to still use www, however, opinions vary:

* https://www.yes-www.org/why-use-www/

* https://dropwww.com/why

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#86

Post by pmontra »

RL_Quine wrote: post #69
tgv wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a moment to talk about The Great Saver, uMatrix?

Disabling a lot of the bloat makes random pages break, which is an even worse experience.

Would I recommend uMatrix to my non technical friends? Absolutely not.

For technical people it's a matter of self selection. It's worse for the ones of us that can't bother checking which scripts break the page and deciding whether to enable them. It's great for the others. Personally I can't imagine using the web without uMatrix (and uBlock Origin). For the site that really breaks no matter what, if I really need it either I open it in a Vivaldi private window (I only have uBlock in that browser) or if anything else fails, I start Chrome and close it immediately after I did what I had to do.

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#87

Post by Avamander »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #56
SiVal wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you (or someone) explain this? (I'm not arguing, I'm interested.)

There is lots on the DNS already. For the security argument: Consider you run on `example.com` and at a later stage add `[blog|forum|support|...].example.com` suddenly cookies from `example.com` might leak to those Subdomains. If you put cookies on `www.example.com` they won't leak to those.

Not if you set the Domain attribute of the cookie properly, this is a poor software problem, not second-level domain problem.

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#88

Post by Avamander »

aequitas wrote: post #18
danpalmer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard anecdotally that getting .xyz email delivered is much harder than .com, some servers just blanket reject. I expect this will change as the domains become more popular.

I managed a hosted email platform in the past and can confirm one of our spam filters was a simple whitelist of all know TLD's, which was manually updated every now and then. We eventually dropped it when new TLD's where announced every few weeks. Can image some providers still use these kinds of lists and not updating them because they receive no complaints.

> not updating them because they receive no complaints.

I wonder why...

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#89

Post by unilynx »

mr__y wrote: post #62
mytailorisrich wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I've seen validation that assumed that TLDs were 2 or 3 characters only.

Oh yes, a simple [a-z]{2,3} in regexp. I'm pretty sure I've seen exactly this on many different occasions

Or their 'modern' version: ([a-z]{2,3})|info)

Re: Benchmarking DNS response times of TLDs

#90

Post by uasm »

frereubu wrote: post #77
edent wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested in the NHS systems which didn't recognise the newer TLDs. I work for NHSX - could you drop me an email with the details? My contact details are in my profile. Thanks!

Sure - I'll drop them an email to see if they can remember. They changed towards the middle of last year, and it was reported to them by NHS staff rather than them experiencing it first-hand, so their memories may be a bit hazy.

Friendly reminder: you don't really know whether this person truly works for the NHS, as they claim. Don't divulge sensitive information to random people.
Post reply on HN