<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On 16 Dec 2016, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Mills <<a href="mailto:daniel@rednetworks.com.au" class="">daniel@rednetworks.com.au</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);" class="">I agree James, it will cause customers (if the DNS option is chosen by the ISPs) to use opendns or google or any number of other services which renders the legitimate reasons for dns poisoning such as local caches of content on google or Akamai mirrors etc which will then cost the ISP more in terms of usage of international transit instead of using peering paths.<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I’m intrigued: What are the “legitimate reasons for DNS poisoning?”</div><div><br class=""></div><div> - mark</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>