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.
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)
Nice try CloudFlare,
but I’m still picking Quad9 any day over you:
https://www.quad9.net/
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.
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)