Omntiure 的 CNAME
LLNW 等网站为 Omniture 请求创建 CNAME 记录（例如 metrics.limelightnetworks.com而不是limelightnetworks.122.2o7.net）？
我发现一篇文章似乎表明它旨在规避第 3 方 cookie 设置。这种方法还有其他优点/缺点吗？从性能角度来看，这不会从客户端创建额外的 DNS 请求吗？另外，Omniture 不包含一个 P3P 标头（紧凑隐私政策），该标头允许 IE 的默认“Medium”接受第 3 方 cookie隐私设置？
What are some reasons why sites like LLNW create a CNAME record for Omniture requests (e.g. metrics.limelightnetworks.com instead of limelightnetworks.122.2o7.net)?
I've found a post that seems to suggest that it's intended to circumvent 3rd-party-cookie settings. Are there any other pros/cons to this approach? From a performance perspective, does this not create an additional DNS request from the client? Also, doesn't Omniture include a P3P header (compact privacy policty) that allows 3rd party cookies to be accepted by IE's default 'Medium' privacy setting?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
以下是您应该为 Omniture 请求创建 CNAME 记录的最大原因：
即使使用 IE 的默认设置，友好的第 3 方 Cookie 的接受率也约为 85%。
原因是某些安全程序将 2o7.net 域列为已知的跟踪提供商，并阻止这些请求。此外，Safari 默认情况下不接受友好的第 3 方 cookie。
如果您切换到第一方 cookie，您将看到超过 95% 的接受率。
Here's the biggest reason why you should create the CNAME records for Omniture requests:
Friendly 3rd Party Cookies have about an 85% acceptance rate, even with IE's default setting.
The reason being that some security programs list the 2o7.net domain as a known tracking provider, and blocks those requests. Also, Safari by default doesn't accept friendly 3rd party cookies.
If you switch to a first party cookie, you'll see an acceptance rate of over 95%.