Apologies for the delay. Comments inline.
No worries, thanks for your answers - see comments inline, too
1.: !!Backup Resolver
This is quite inaccurate.
1. The backup resolver only kicks in if your primary DNS server is
misbehaving. If you have a valid DNS then queries to 220.127.116.11 would
never be sent.
What about the "Enable paralles DNS resolving" ?
As I said, parallel DNS resolving will _only_ kick in if your DNS server does not work.
2. Such queries are only made when you are connecting to a specific
account. Resolution for the actual addresses you are calling is
handled by the server.
So still, practically every time I start up my computer, Google get's my
No. They don't. Their DNS server only receives a query when your DNS server is not working while you are trying to connect to your SIP/XMPP account.
On the whole we are currently satisfied with the compromise that we
get with 18.104.22.168 so we are unlikely to change this in the near future.
Sorry to nag, but what would be the issue or potential issue in changing
the entries to the ones mentioned?
The issues is that I don't see how this solves anything. Note that the list you pasted in your mail:
That list also contains Google's 22.214.171.124.
So all in all I see two problems with changing:
1. I don't see how we reasonably determine whether the entity we go for satisfies the trust constraints you describe. In other words: why are the others better than Google? I don't see how we could objectively do that.
2. We need to make sure that they provide comparable reliability and speed in all kinds of the world. I don't currently know of a Jitsi contributor with enough spare time to perform such an evaluation.
On 16.05.14, 16:01, Christian Kasprowicz wrote: