3 ms·
The same argument basically applies to DoH (DNS over HTTPS).
by teddyh 4y ago
The same argument basically applies to DoH (DNS over HTTPS).
- georgyo 4y agoThe argument is that the user must choose their gateway, not that https gateways are bad in general. With DoH generally must both opt in and must choose your provider.
- teddyh 4y agoI’ve seen a lot of defaults to use Google or Cloudflare as resolvers.
- snvzz 4y agoI do unbound -> tor -> cloudflare.
- LinuxBender 4y agoI've never tried that. Would you be willing to post the extended unbound stats, just the median group of latency timing? Here is one of my unbound nodes that does DoT to other DoT nodes I control that then do more DoT to other resolvers. I use a cron job to pre-cache most things I use so the latency isn't a big deal. I'm just curious what yours looks like. If you don't have it set to go to logs then it can be pulled with "unbound-control stats_noreset|grep histo" 0.004096 0.008192 1 0.008192 0.016384 3 0.016384 0.032768 2 0.032768 0.065536 121 0.065536 0.131072 156 0.131072 0.262144 205 0.262144 0.524288 304 0.524288 1.000000 98 1.000000 2.000000 141 2.000000 4.000000 24
- jeroenhd 4y agoWith ODoH and DNSSEC this risk is mostly mitigated. It's a shame DNSSEC is often missing client implementation (and that the .com sphere barely implements it at all) but the risks have been mitigated pretty well in my opinion.
- sneak 4y agoI think in both cases people are expected to use a gateway as a transitional step to end devices eventually speaking native DNSSEC or ipfs p2p.