DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
61–70 of 364 posts
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#62Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#63The 95%ile DNS response time for cached/uncached names. The 95%ile DNS response when one/some of the authoritative nameservers is "lame" or not responding. (better yet, 99%ile, but that requires even more queries...)
The average packet loss to the nameserver. (As many resolvers use the default of a 5s timeout, better resolvers use a 1s timeout, the best stub resolvers would use a dynamic timeout, but afaik, none do...).
Do they implement DNSSEC validation? What is their story for domains that break DNSSEC (eg: https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/cas...)?
Do they implement RFC7129 (authenticated denial of existence)? This can be used to prevent your service being used to attack an authoritative nameserver, prevents leaks of useless domains (eg machines looking up untitled.pdf as a domain), and allows you to return NXDOMAIN with much lower latency, making DNS search paths faster. RFC8020 (NXDOMAIN: There is really nothing underneath) would be another example where you can prevent leaking names, and return faster responses from a smaller cache (although I admit I've never seen anyone implement RFC8020 yet).
Will they accept (signed) responses into their cache in the additional section? Again, this can significantly reduce the time for uncached responses.
[hint: These are good reasons you should sign your domain, it can make things faster and reduce load on your authoritative nameserver!]
What is their story for domains that need a cache flush?
Do they (correctly) implement IPv6 from the recursive to the authoritative nameservers? Do they (correctly) implement IPv6 from the stub to the recursive nameserver?
How big is their cache? How long do things stay in their cache? There's no point being close to a nameserver with an empty cache. Querying www.google.com isn't really going to tell you much about their cache depth, nor is the Alexa 1M. You need a very very wide variety of names.
Do they provide good GeoIP responses? There's no point in getting an answer for the middle of the US in Do they "lie" about names? In what circumstances do they lie? Do they NXDOMAIN malicious domains? adult websites? ad domains? random websites? Do they redirect ad websites to their own ad farm? How do their lies handle DNSSEC?
Do they perform QNAME minimalisation to help protect your queries from servers that don't need it?
What other features do they implement to make sure their cache is never poisoned?
What is their abuse plan? If I send them a vast number of queries what happens? Do they send back TrunCated responses and force me over TCP? Will they respond with SERVFAIL? Or will they drop the queries? Or will they pass them all through to the authoritative nameservers? Do I need to do anything (other than stop sending abusive amounts of load) to be unblocked? What if the reason I'm sending a large number of queries is because I'm a carrier grade NAT IP pool and I have one broken/bad user?
What is their reliability story? Is it expected that they will go down for 10 minutes every now and again?
What do they do about general Internet Hygiene? Do they have protects against being used for reflection attacks?
Do they do preemptive lookups to keep their cache warm or is someone always guaranteed to have to wait for the full resolution? How do they make sure they don't accidentally DoS authoritative nameservers with preemptive resolutions?
Things not to look for:
ICMP/mtr times are essentially meaningless, except as providing general information about routing decisions.
The mean response time, as it tends to be washed out by cached response times, and what you don't care about is if it takes 15ms or 17ms on average, as you can't perceive the difference. What you _do_ care about is if one nameserver has 1/5000 queries which take >1s as that will become a frequent noticeable problem when your surfing.
Just looking at a few common names that are likely to be in the cache. Yes, those are important, but as with anything at scale, it's the long tail that's actually interesting and will dominate your perception of performance. You can set up your own domain, and search for random strings and force the full end-to-end query flow. (Beware about wildcard domains for this, if your domain is signed, in theory the nameserver could synthesize responses without going back to your nameserver).
Where are your vantage points for measurements? Many people appear to measure from places like AWS zones, and then report spectacular performance for DNS servers also hosted in the same AWS zones – despite most of their users not being hosted there.
Hmm, I'm sure there's more, but that's off the top of my head.
(Disclaimer: Once upon a time, I was one of the engineers oncall for Google Public DNS, so I have Opinions)
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to do it on your local linux system, it's pretty easy: you just need to install bind9 and use `nameserver 127.0.0.1` in your /etc/resolv.conf Bind9 has a poor reputation because of how difficult it is to use it to define zones (manage a domain name), but if you want to use it as a resolver, it's basically plug'n'play. Huge bonus included : if you want to flush the cache, you just need to run `sudo rndc fl…
Honestly, isn’t Unbound a better shout if you’re not going to be fiddling with it? Just install, run, and edit /etc/resolv.conf to point at 127.0.0.1.
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always used 8.8.8.8, since I couldn't remember OpenDNS's IPs. But just found out today that, from Sydney, OpenDNS and Cloudflare are kicking Google's ass for speed. 8.8.8.8 is on par with my ISP-default DNS.
Ever since The Great Comcast DNS Outage of 2010, I've had the OpenDNS IPs burned into my memory from telling so many people. I like the fact that you can sign up for OpenDNS and customize some of the filtering (ads, spam/malware, etc.) They used to have crappy handling of nxdomains (by default) redirecting you to a website with ads, but I believe that's no longer the case?
Pihole is also a great alternative if you have a spare raspi lying around.
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#66Which ISPs are so bad that you want to use external services, which are further in distance than your ISP, for speed? When I test with my ISP, they beat all of these services (both IPv4 and IPv6). They're simply closer to me in terms of hops. My router is another story though. The Fritzbox (>200eur router) adds 6ms of latency, and that's what is advertised over DHCP. (Might still be fine, since cached queries are fas…
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
But your DNS will have to query other DNS providers so if you’re the only one using it, it won’t be private.
There is 2 main different ways, one which does what you say - the other i'd say is pretty much OK. If your local DNS server is merely querying an upstream resolver (like 1.1.1.1 / 8.8.8.8) on your behalf, then yes - it is no different. If however, you query the root nameservers for the glue record for a domain and query the domain's own nameservers directly, then it is pretty good... As you are neither querying your…
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#68Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#69Is there a tutorial on setting up your own? I've got a huge hosts file and would like it to affect all the devices at my home but setting up a DNS server always seemed high-level black magic to me.
Re: DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8.8.8 x Quad9 x OpenDNS
#70I feel like people forgot about how CloudFlare, Google, et. al. can new effectively censor content they don't agree with: https://fightthefuture.org/article/the-new-era-of-corporate-... ..and even though CloudFlare back pedaled on that particular decision somewhat, it still happened. If you really want something fast and secure, run your own caching DNS that uses root DNS servers.