• litchralee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      10 months ago

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

      • p1mrx
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

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

          • p1mrx
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

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

          • SteveTech@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months 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.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months 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

      • Rikj000@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

          • Guntrigger@feddit.ch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months 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.

      • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months 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.

    • voxel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months 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)

      • litchralee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It is quite the mouthful, but I really hope people aren’t – whether v4 or v6 – having to manually type in DNS servers regularly. Whatever your choice of DNS server, it should be a set-it-and-forget-it affair, so the one-off lookup time becomes negligible.

  • 342345@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    “You are the number 1111 (base 255) for me.” isn’t even a backhanded compliment any more, or is it?

    I mean, that puts the person in question behind 16.843.008 more favourable people (unless I’ve miscalculated).

    • xmunk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re polyamorous so one of the five.