Google Public DNS

[KeithP]

Google is now providing DNS servers.

http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/

I haven't had a chance to try it myself (currently using OpenDNS). Is anyone using the service yet?

-KeithP

 

[spidey07]

This is a terrible idea. It's just so google can collect stats on what sites you visit and possible insert content/advertising.

 

[seepy83]

I've never had a reason to use a DNS server other than the ones provided by my ISP.

 

[m1ldslide1]

This is a terrible idea. It's just so google can collect stats on what sites you visit and possible insert content/advertising.

Terrible idea for us, another marketing win for Google.

 

[Drakkon]

This is a terrible idea. It's just so google can collect stats on what sites you visit and possible insert content/advertising.

yes why would someone ever commit to allowing a company to track their practices in such a way...

\views anadtech code - tribalfusion, doubleclick, scorecardresearch.... if your giving it away to one might as well give it away to all...

 

[arch113]

This is a terrible idea. It's just so google can collect stats on what sites you visit and possible insert content/advertising.

http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq.html#privacy

Privacy

What information does Google log when I use the Google Public DNS service?
Google Public DNS complies with Google's main privacy policy, which you can view at our Privacy Center. With Google Public DNS, we collect IP address (only temporarily) and ISP and location information (in permanent logs) for the purpose of making our service faster, better and more secure. Specifically, we use this data to conduct debugging, to analyze abuse phenomena and to improve our prefetching feature. After 24 hours, we erase any IP information. For more information, read the Google Public DNS privacy page.

Is any of the information collected stored with my Google account?
No.

Does Google share the information it collects from the Google Public DNS service with anyone else?
No.

Is information about my queries to Google Public DNS shared with other Google properties, such as Search, Gmail, ads networks, etc.?
No.

 

[dahunan]

I just did it and every site so far is much faster

 

[Rubycon]

This is a terrible idea. It's just so google can collect stats on what sites you visit and possible insert content/advertising.

What about using their server for DNS lookups for an SMTP server?

 

[Crow550]

Now to see which is better......OpenDNS VS Google DNS.

OpenDNS displays Google ads when you screw up on a url.......Google is um Google.....I doubt they will add more ads to pages......Maybe use a similar page when you goto the wrong URL.

We need speed tests....

 

[Thor86]

As long as it's faster, and doesn't inject ads, what do we care? Great for all of us.

 

[JackMDS]

Sorry guys but from my local (NYC using RR Cable Internet) the Google is number 23rd in speed.

 

[spidey07]

Sorry guys but from my local (NYC using RR Cable Internet) the Google is number 23rd.

www.ezlan.net/example/DNS-NYC-RR.jpg

fixed link

 

[JackMDS]

The issue is Not tracking and server that you go through is aware of the traffic that the way it is just like you see other people when you walk on the street or drive your car.

The issue is a good legislation and enforcement that make sure that the logs are not used or shared with any one but the low enforcement agencies under Judge order.

The ISPs are rather good about it. The question is whether Google as a DNS provider is under these laws.

 

[JackMDS]

fixed link

 

[Rubycon]

How is this benchmark program ranking DNS servers?
Is it by ping or actual response time to perform real uncached lookups? Seems to me the latter is the only real way.

Isn't it better to use a DNS server that has all the known "bad" hosts - i.e. the ones serving malicious files - parked at 127.0.0.1?

 

[RebateMonger]

For my clients with their own internal DNS servers, I use Root Servers/Root Hints for public DNS resolution. That way you are never dependent on a single DNS source. ISPs, in my experience, have been pretty bad as DNS providers. Over the years, I've had a couple of ISPs shut down DNS servers without any apparent notification, leaving the client's office without Internet DNS resolution. That sucks.

 

[Rubycon]

For my clients with their own internal DNS servers, I use Root Servers/Root Hints for public DNS resolution. That way you are never dependent on a single DNS source. ISPs, in my experience, have been pretty bad as DNS providers. Over the years, I've had a couple of ISPs shut down DNS servers without any apparent notification, leaving the client's office without Internet DNS resolution. That sucks.

Or they switch to non recursive mode!

 

[JackMDS]

How is this benchmark program ranking DNS servers?
Is it by ping or actual response time to perform real uncached lookups? Seems to me the latter is the only real way.

Isn't it better to use a DNS server that has all the known "bad" hosts - i.e. the ones serving malicious files - parked at 127.0.0.1?

If you look at the top of the screen shot you would see that the Uncached response it checked.

You can block sites of your choice, and put some URLs to be resolved locally through the 127.0.0.1 (Host File).

You can Not store the Whole Internet DNS server on your local computers.

 

[Rubycon]

If you look at the top of the screen shot you would see that the Uncached response it checked.

You can block sites of your choice, and put some URLs to be resolved locally through the 127.0.0.1 (Host File).

You can Not store the Whole Internet DNS server on your local computers.

Yes but (again) is it actually the same if you did NSLOOKUP.EXE from the command prompt? (after IPCONFIG /FLUSHDNS)

I cannot access hosts file (blocked) but that's just the beginning of how weird things are set up here.

But for sake of simplicity - a single PC with an internet gateway - one has to wonder what really does make browsing faster particularly hitting sites that you have not visited regularly, etc.

 

[JackMDS]

There are different ways and tricks to deal with variety of Internet issue.

There is also a tendency of many users and enthusiasts to behave according to the behavioral pattren that they learn from 24/7 talking heads on Cable news, also known as "Dogma before Facts".

There is a myth that OpenDNS is always better than your own ISP's DNS, and that any thing Google does Rulez.

I try to abide with what ever I can measure and explain with technical data.

When I saw that Google offered DNS server I added the IPs to my DNS bench mark list and Run.

The results show that in my local there are 22 DNS servers that work faster than Google.

And 8 that work better than OpenDNS.

 

[Nothinman]

The results show that in my local there are 22 DNS servers that work faster than Google.

Which is meaningless because of client-side caching. The time required by a DNS lookup is the shortest part of loading a webpage, if a difference of ~2ms is that big of a deal then something else on your network is broken.

I'm not opposed to the whole thing because it gives me another public DNS server to test with besides 4.2.2.2, but that's about it.

 

[JackMDS]

if a difference of ~2ms is that big of a deal then something else on your network is broken.

I'm not opposed to the whole thing because it gives me another public DNS server to test with besides 4.2.2.2, but that's about it.

Sure it is meaninless, and sadly so many other issues that are triumphed by many Entusiasts (Expensive PSUs, Killer Video cards, RAID that does nothing for the way the many people use their computers etc. etc.).

The whole point is to put a dent in some of the none-sense.

The Screenshot was Not a suggestion to run and set the DNS accordingly.

It was a demonstration that OpenDNS (as a simple DNS server) and the new Google DNS IP, do not contribute any thing that merits to run and follow.

 

[Red Squirrel]

For my clients with their own internal DNS servers, I use Root Servers/Root Hints for public DNS resolution. That way you are never dependent on a single DNS source. ISPs, in my experience, have been pretty bad as DNS providers. Over the years, I've had a couple of ISPs shut down DNS servers without any apparent notification, leaving the client's office without Internet DNS resolution. That sucks.

That's pretty much what I do at home and works great. My ISP's DNS servers suck, well they have improved, but at the time I implemented my server it was bloody slow. I kept trying to tell this to the help desk but they somehow figured that by changing the phone line it would improve my DNS lookups lol.

 

[JackMDS]

The DNS root servers are thirteen DNS server clusters which are responsible for delegating DNS requests to the top level domain (TLD) nameservers.

-----------------------
The general public with regular client OS computer that experience DNS problems would do very well with one of these.

Public DNS Servers

Level 3 Communications (Broomfield, CO, US)
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.3
4.2.2.4
4.2.2.5
4.2.2.6

Verizon (Reston, VA, US)
151.197.0.38
151.197.0.39
151.202.0.84
151.202.0.85
151.202.0.85
151.203.0.84
151.203.0.85
199.45.32.37
199.45.32.38
199.45.32.40
199.45.32.43

GTE (Irving, TX, US)
192.76.85.133
206.124.64.1

One Connect IP (Albuquerque, NM, US)
67.138.54.100

OpenDNS (San Francisco, CA, US)
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

Exetel (Sydney, AU)
220.233.167.31

VRx Network Services (New York, NY, US)
199.166.31.3

SpeakEasy (Seattle, WA, US)
66.93.87.2
216.231.41.2
216.254.95.2
64.81.45.2
64.81.111.2
64.81.127.2
64.81.79.2
64.81.159.2
66.92.64.2
66.92.224.2
66.92.159.2
64.81.79.2
64.81.159.2
64.81.127.2
64.81.45.2
216.27.175.2
66.92.159.2
66.93.87.2
Sprintlink (Overland Park, KS, US)
199.2.252.10
204.97.212.10
204.117.214.10
Cisco (San Jose, CA, US)
64.102.255.44
128.107.241.185

 

[Red Squirrel]

Actually I'd be curious to know what type of hardware runs the root DNS. Must be some serious machines.