> Every DNS host I've ever used has offered full control of DNS records.
That's not true. Typically most dns hosting solutions offer so little control and it is so primitive, that they only treat records as static values, you can't have something like a view{} in bind letting you serve different people by different servers reducing latency and improving availability, say you have one server in America and one in Europe.
> High latency for people who do not live near one of your servers.
See my point above. Dynamically chosen records are fundamental to cheap good latency. And no, anycast is not a silver bullet, you can do pretty good with just dynamic records, you can use them for nameservers too, you know.
That's not true. Typically most dns hosting solutions offer so little control and it is so primitive, that they only treat records as static values, you can't have something like a view{} in bind letting you serve different people by different servers reducing latency and improving availability, say you have one server in America and one in Europe.
> High latency for people who do not live near one of your servers.
See my point above. Dynamically chosen records are fundamental to cheap good latency. And no, anycast is not a silver bullet, you can do pretty good with just dynamic records, you can use them for nameservers too, you know.