2,677 karma · joined January 14, 2022
Full-time dad.
By that reasoning I could have a monopoly on peanuts and it’s alright because consumers can choose from hundreds of other foods.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W...
But at least we both agree private dns =/= split brain. :)
So what's your solution when you have a wholly private service that will never have a public v4 address, nor a publicly routable v6? How do clients get the address for a nice domain name without the addresses in public DNS?
Which, if you claim you use private DNS, you know you can indeed solve by only having the private records sit on your private DNS service that can only be hit by clients on the internal network. Without the architectural bad practice of implementing split horizon.
(My take. happy to be corrected by someone with chip design experience who can comment.)
There is probably a middle ground though. Something like a main thread agent (say a local model for Hermes) orchestrating cloud based sub agents.
If you have a heavy enough tech stack to run fully internal services, than you can also run an internal DNS service (even pihole is enough) and load internal only entries there.
Or add everything to your hosts file if you have a central config service.
This introduces all sorts of aberrant behavior. Most notably that clients will get different responses depending on their query and route that you now have to test for. It also is a “silent” deviation for audiences that may not be aware of.
I’m not sure what problem that is trying to be solved here? That the OP wanted internal users seeing a different site than external users? Or using a different route in? In both those cases the correct user behavior is to use a different DNS record.
It can be monotonous and degrading, but commercial air is the safe way to travel.
Better make sure the only DNS operations you run during an outage are data plane queries and health check failovers.
If they can’t or don’t want cc numbers (makes sense considering how painful PCI guidelines are anyway) does that mean they need to rely on more tools from the processors or user accounts maintained by the merchant themselves?
If the latter, seems like a small friction point for a consumer. Given how often cc numbers change and how many an (American) consumer has, this won’t block anything unless you are charging back more than once every few months.
If someone is running postgres in a serious backend environment, i doubt they are using Ubuntu or even touching 7.x for months (or years). It’ll be some flavor of Debian or Red Hat still on 6.x (maybe even 5?). Those same users won’t touch 7.x until there has been months of testing by distros.