The issue here isn’t DNS. The issue here is a large portion of the internet relying on a single data centre on the US East coast. Ideally, a lot of competing hosting companies would exist so if one goes down, it’s just one service and very few people notice.
Why is Signal hosted in one location on AWS, for example? That’s the sort of thing that should be in multiple places around the world with automatic fail over.
Makes sense. DNS is quite a single point of failure
It is designed to not to be. The RFC literally warns against single points of failure
Its true.
It comes up at work, it comes up in discussions on Linux podcasts I listen to, it comes up here…
We have a big, dangerous impending problem in DNS.
The issue here isn’t DNS. The issue here is a large portion of the internet relying on a single data centre on the US East coast. Ideally, a lot of competing hosting companies would exist so if one goes down, it’s just one service and very few people notice.
So much this.
Why is Signal hosted in one location on AWS, for example? That’s the sort of thing that should be in multiple places around the world with automatic fail over.
I prefer end to end encrypted xmpp
I prefer face to face communication, speaking in code and whispering in eachother’s ears so nobody else can hear.
I hope they work towards mitigating this risk from now on.
Yes, that’s true, I guess it’s a separate issue. But the way DNS currently runs is a problem waiting to happen.