> The most important thing going on here is Anycast. ... This results in packets being routed to the nearest DNS server.
Nearest in terms of AS path. This can be wildly different than latency as BGP isn't really implemented with cost/performance in mind. Anyone relying on anycast to answer their latency story is doing a lazy/poor/ignorant job of it.
> You're right that most users use a caching DNS server, so it is actually the location of the DNS caching server.
And another case where end users would be better served by providers implementing edns client-subnet extensions. This would allow savvy content providers to route to the actual end user, and not their resolver.
Nearest in terms of AS path. This can be wildly different than latency as BGP isn't really implemented with cost/performance in mind. Anyone relying on anycast to answer their latency story is doing a lazy/poor/ignorant job of it.
> You're right that most users use a caching DNS server, so it is actually the location of the DNS caching server.
And another case where end users would be better served by providers implementing edns client-subnet extensions. This would allow savvy content providers to route to the actual end user, and not their resolver.