Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 155 posts

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#31

Post by jasonhansel »

rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

I'd really like it if there was an easy way for "ordinary" consumers to setup a web/email/etc. server on, say, an AWS or GCP instance. Wouldn't exactly be decentralized, but it'd give users more control.

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#32

Post by viraptor »

Havoc wrote: post #22

That seems like a bit much. I think getting people to run a raspberry and pi-hole is a much more realistic aim in terms of usefulness and creating awareness. Plus it's been pretty eye opening. I'm running uBlock Origin and Privacy badger...and still the pi-hole filter 25% of my traffic. A full fkin quarter after adblockers...

All the filtering you're doing on pihole you can do in uBlock. You're just using different lists. (or not refreshing your adblocker list very often?) DNS blocking is still useful for things like mobile apps, but if you want to remove a few ms from your page loads, then merging your entries into uBlock may be a good idea.

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#33

Post by js2 »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #29
rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

My browsing habits are pretty regular, though: there’s half a dozen sites I visit regularly and the rest are random blogs/etc. I suspect about 20% of the domains I visit account for 80% of my browsing traffic and there would be enormous benefits from a dns speed perspective to a local caching resolver.

Maybe. Many sites use pretty short TTLs. So your sites may be dropping out of your cache more frequently than you think.

Easy to test though. Run dnsmasq and enable query logging and see how often it’s having to forward requests. Then realize a recursing resolver is potentially having to go all the way to the TLDs for those requests.

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#34

Post by mmaunder »

This site is a paywall no matter if I go incognito or use the web link. Am i missing some ninja magic? Is it ok to be irritated by this?

Haven't been able to read the article but is it referring to this Nov 2018 tweet?

https://twitter.com/paulvixie/status/1063843157668970496?s=1...

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#35

Post by tambourine_man »

rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

The only chance we have for people to run their own services is if we make it dead easy to do so and the advantages are clearly communicated.

Unfortunately, that hasn’t been open source’s forte historically.

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#36

Post by timbit42 »

rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

Won't IPv6 make this easier? Isn't the primary reason people don't run their own servers now because of NAT?

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#37

Post by ryan-c »

js2 wrote: post #30
reshie wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well there is dnscrypt. i use a local cache for fast revisits. ya i'm not sure everyone having full dns servers would be a good thing or even practical.

DNSCrypt only provides authentication, not confidentiality, and it’s only between the client and the recursive server. So it doesn’t address either the performance or the privacy concern of routing all your DNS through someone else’s recursive servers. Edit: apparently it encrypts traffic as well: https://dnscrypt.info/faq/ So it’s comparable to DoH which prevents your ISP from snooping but per my other comments here…

Are you sure you're not thinking of DNSCurve? It doesn't provide confidentiality, but AFAICT DNSCrypt does.

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#38

Post by Vosporos »

timbit42 wrote: post #36
rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

Won't IPv6 make this easier? Isn't the primary reason people don't run their own servers now because of NAT?

The other reason is that maintaining a server and its services is sometimes a full-time job :/

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#39

Post by fonosip »

jasonhansel wrote: post #31
rmdoss wrote: post #20

More people should be running their own mail servers, their own web servers, their own IRC servers, etc. But I don't think we are ever going back to that direction. The arguments and benefits for running one locally are not enough the trouble as well. Performance? Due to DNS caching at the resolver level, it is probably faster to use Google's 8.8.8.8 or CloudFlare's 1.1.1.1, than anything local (where all dns request…

I'd really like it if there was an easy way for "ordinary" consumers to setup a web/email/etc. server on, say, an AWS or GCP instance. Wouldn't exactly be decentralized, but it'd give users more control.

For pi-hole dns vpn self-hosted https://ba.net/adblock/vpn/doc/howto.html

Re: Paul Vixie thinks more people should be running their own DNS servers

#40

Post by the_narrator »

throwawaygoog10 wrote: post #25
wahern wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're cool with Google, a company whose primary business is tracking people, seeing all your DNS, but not your ISP, whose primary business is delivering network access, notwithstanding their bumbling efforts to branch out. Now, Google does claim they don't track DNS requests. But consider why that is? Once upon a time they didn't scan Gmail content either, but that was before GMail dominated the webmail space. Wh…

Disclaimer: I work for Google, but not on DNS or Gmail. > Now, Google does claim they don't track DNS requests. But consider why that is? Once upon a time they didn't scan Gmail content either, but that was before GMail dominated the webmail space. You seem to assume that it's a singular organization with a unified agenda, but this really isn't the case. It's the same thing about when folks assume Google looks at you…

I can't imagine using Google services if one is remotely privacy conscious. Just from your own defense:

Drive: > your data isn't scanned (except for...

Google DNS: > What logging exists is extremely temporary...

Gmail: > we receive your email, scan it for ....

Post reply on HN