this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
328 points (91.4% liked)

Programmer Humor

33619 readers
383 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 107 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Nice try CloudFlare,
but I'm still picking Quad9 any day over you:

https://www.quad9.net/

[–] litchralee 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh wow, that might be the shortest-representation IPv6 DNS server I've seen to date: 2620:fe::9

[–] p1mrx 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

2a09:: 2a11:: and 2409:: are the shortest.

[–] litchralee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] p1mrx 9 points 1 year ago

I found them via IP address, so I don't know anything about the company beyond that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can have .0 as a host. 10.0.1.0/23 is a perfectly valid host, same with 10.0.0.255/23

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

is quad9 a nonprofit?

what makes them trustworthy wih that claim?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

9.9.9.9 has twice the latency for me. Why pick quad9 over, say, 1.1.1.2?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] sloppy_diffuser 1 points 1 year ago

Plus DNS caching... I do DOT or DOH (forget which, setup years ago) from my router's local DNS server without any noticeable latency.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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)