Nice try CloudFlare,
but I’m still picking Quad9 any day over you:Oh wow, that might be the shortest-representation IPv6 DNS server I’ve seen to date: 2620:fe::9
2a09:: 2a11:: and 2409:: are the shortest.
Do you recommend dns.sb?
I found them via IP address, so I don’t know anything about the company beyond that.
That’s networks, not hosts
Nah, apparently it’s completely valid to end IPv6 addresses with a 0. And I haven’t done much research, but it seems IPv6 really doesn’t have network addresses the way IPv4 does.
Also you can ping them and they reply.
You can have .0 as a host. 10.0.1.0/23 is a perfectly valid host, same with 10.0.0.255/23
why do you like it better?
I don’t trust CloudFlare with my data,
assume they will sell it since it’s a for-profit company.Meanwhile Quad9 touts about not logging IPs and being GDPR compliant.
is quad9 a nonprofit?
what makes them trustworthy wih that claim?
I Googled them because I was interested. The answer is yes.
Sony failed to sue them, hoping to force them to block copyright breach adjacent DNS resolvers. That feels like a badge of honour.
9.9.9.9 has twice the latency for me. Why pick quad9 over, say, 1.1.1.2?
Swiss
Twice the latency for DNS results? Care to give concrete examples? DNS is usually very fast. Twice as long as very fast is still pretty quick, in my opinion.
I’m always on VPN, so latencies add up.
dig +stats @1.1.1.1 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec'gives me 10-20ms using a nearby vpn server
dig +stats @9.9.9.9 www.google.com | grep '[\d]+ msec'gets me 30-50 ms, and not rarely >100ms.
Plus DNS caching… I do DOT or DOH (forget which, setup years ago) from my router’s local DNS server without any noticeable latency.
kinda hate how they don’t provide dns with dnssec but no malware blocking (i prefer my dns to always just resolve stuff regardless if it’s “malware” or not)
also their default dns does has ECS disabled (they have an alternative one tho)
you are the only cloudfare DNS for me?
there’s no place like 127.0.0.1
“there’s no place like localhost?”
Yeah, it’s so out of touch, at least put “192.168.1.*” or something. It’s very individualistic.
You’re one out of 254 usable hosts.
For the modern IP (aka IPv6) folks: 2606:4700:4700::1111
Other brands of IPv6 DNS servers are available.
Ah, just rolls off the tongue
It is quite the mouthful, but I really hope people aren’t – whether v4 or v6 – having to manually type in DNS servers regularly. Whatever your choice of DNS server, it should be a set-it-and-forget-it affair, so the one-off lookup time becomes negligible.
DoT and DoH can be entered as URLs, this is the Quad9 example but there are several others:
tls://dns.quad9.net
“You are the number 1111 (base 255) for me.” isn’t even a backhanded compliment any more, or is it?
I mean, that puts the person in question behind 16.843.008 more favourable people (unless I’ve miscalculated).
But which 1?
They’re polyamorous so one of the five.
How about https://dns.watch/ instead ?
I’m keeping my Mullvad DNS.
Fun fact: if you listen really carefully, you’ll hear “Party in the CIA” playing from the thing
