[sf-lug] [1.1.1.1]

[Michael Paoli]

> From: "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Subject: Re: [sf-lug] [1.1.1.1]
> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:49:01 -0700

> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
>
>> Yeah, well, one of the people to whom I said this replied to the effect
>> of "That would be nice, but I have to use an ISP that filters outgoing
>> traffic on port 53 to servers other than theirs."
>
> That would _so very_ be a dealbreaker for me.   I'd be wondering why
> they feel they must force me to use ISP recursive nameservers, which
> tend to be slow, unreliable, and very insecure.
>
> If somehow stuck using such a sucky and suspect vendor, I would also
> certainly start using VPN services immediately, which would get around
> that problem.

Yeah, sounds like someone needs to get their ISP to open that up for them,
or switch from their Internet Disservice provider (IDP) to an actual ISP.

I mean how the heck is one going to actually, among other things, disgnose
DNS issues if the IDP blocks communications to and/or responses from
UDP and/or TCP port 53 on The Internet?  Ditto if they muck with and
alter such traffic - that would likewise be an IDP, and not an ISP.  How
much is the IDP paying the user to accept such abuse and disservice?
Should such IDP have their name publicly sullied, or has that already been
thoroughly covered and documented, and more would just be redundant?