>Your assertion that "DNS is originally a mechanism to convert hierarchical numerical ip adresses with geographical info" is incorrect; geography has nothing to do with it.
Your assertion that my assertion is incorrect is incorrect, maybe your understanding of the subject matter is restricted to textbook definitions and you can't handle words and definitions in an order that is different than the intro sentence on the wikipedia page for DNS.
IP addresses contain geographic information (hierarchically), maybe reread my sentence. Incidentally domains also contain geographical information, albeit strictly of the domains. See all TLDs, and even non-TLDs like .COM and inevitably linked to a geography and jurisdiction, namely VeriSign (which is the TLD registrar) is a US company and is the ultimate authority for those records.
>By your definition, every CDN is a hack.
I'm not exactly sure how CDNs operate, my understanding is that they host the same data on multiple locations on the globe and redirct to the nearest location? They use domains to route to the nearest ip, and use HTTP mechanisms for explicitly proxying content. Seems like all is used as design. The only exception would be if a single IP address points to multiple geodistributed servers like 8.8.8.8, that is indeed a hack.
>Is Dynamic DNS a hack
Yes, god, yes. It's also something no reputable sysadmin or programmer does. It's a technique used by people who can't afford a domain name, or convince an ISP to unblock their ports.
> If you set up a public DNS server to serve internal addresses that nobody else can access unless they're on your internal network, is that a hack?
I don't think so, no.
Counterpoint.
If a DNS server converts empty responses into an ad server (dsajndjandsa.com redirects to ISP's page with ads), is that a hack? Hint it's not theoretical, actually happened.
It's similar to an ad blocking DNS, but in the inverse, it's an ad adding DNS. If your answer is different, it's because your definition of a hack is loaded with your ethical position.
Your assertion that my assertion is incorrect is incorrect, maybe your understanding of the subject matter is restricted to textbook definitions and you can't handle words and definitions in an order that is different than the intro sentence on the wikipedia page for DNS.
IP addresses contain geographic information (hierarchically), maybe reread my sentence. Incidentally domains also contain geographical information, albeit strictly of the domains. See all TLDs, and even non-TLDs like .COM and inevitably linked to a geography and jurisdiction, namely VeriSign (which is the TLD registrar) is a US company and is the ultimate authority for those records.
>By your definition, every CDN is a hack.
I'm not exactly sure how CDNs operate, my understanding is that they host the same data on multiple locations on the globe and redirct to the nearest location? They use domains to route to the nearest ip, and use HTTP mechanisms for explicitly proxying content. Seems like all is used as design. The only exception would be if a single IP address points to multiple geodistributed servers like 8.8.8.8, that is indeed a hack.
>Is Dynamic DNS a hack
Yes, god, yes. It's also something no reputable sysadmin or programmer does. It's a technique used by people who can't afford a domain name, or convince an ISP to unblock their ports.
> If you set up a public DNS server to serve internal addresses that nobody else can access unless they're on your internal network, is that a hack?
I don't think so, no.
Counterpoint.
If a DNS server converts empty responses into an ad server (dsajndjandsa.com redirects to ISP's page with ads), is that a hack? Hint it's not theoretical, actually happened.
It's similar to an ad blocking DNS, but in the inverse, it's an ad adding DNS. If your answer is different, it's because your definition of a hack is loaded with your ethical position.