4 ms·

Distributed internet services is generally considered to be better than centralized ones. Google's entry into this, along with its other services, is beginning

Distributed internet services is generally considered to be better than centralized ones. Google's entry into this, along with its other services, is beginning to give me pause. I'm glad they've worked on this, but I think I'll stick with DNS as it was intended to be.

pyre 17y ago
The problem is that local ISPs (or national/regional like Comcast) are poisoning the well by resolving non-existent DNS entries to their own advertisement-laden web servers in an attempt to increase their bottom line. At least open DNS servers exist like Level3 (4.2.2.[1-4]) or now Google (8.8.8.8,8.8.4.4)... (and to a lesser extent OpenDNS, which is 'open' but tries to pull some of the same advertisement stuff). In general, the distributed aspect of DNS was to reduce latency and network traffic. While this might not keep network traffic within your ISP's internal network, it can severely reduce latency even if you're on a large ISP like Comcast/Qwest/TimeWarner. My only guess as to why this appears to be true, is that most ISPs don't really give a crap about their DNS servers just so long as it's still running and hasn't imploded.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  You're right on all points. However, given Google's entry into this now, what motivation does any ISP have left for running its own DNS servers?
  - pyre 17y ago
    Keeping traffic on it's own network vs having all DNS queries making a round-trip between their network and Google's DNS (ala Level3)? It's not like ISPs have ever needed an excuse to try and 'cut costs' by skimping on services. The difference is a greater majority of their customers use DNS than USENET.
    - thaumaturgy 17y ago
      DNS doesn't occupy a lot of bandwidth. DNS servers on the other hand can be irksome to deal with if you don't have to. Small ISPs are merely resellers; if their DSL customers f'rinstance use Google's DNS servers instead of the ISPs, the ISP actually has less network traffic coming into their racks. Plus, they no longer have to admin a DNS server. For larger ISPs, it may still be less trouble to just let their customers use Google's DNS instead.
      - pyre 17y ago
        Point taken.

pyre 17y ago

The problem is that local ISPs (or national/regional like Comcast) are poisoning the well by resolving non-existent DNS entries to their own advertisement-laden web servers in an attempt to increase their bottom line. At least open DNS servers exist like Level3 (4.2.2.[1-4]) or now Google (8.8.8.8,8.8.4.4)... (and to a lesser extent OpenDNS, which is 'open' but tries to pull some of the same advertisement stuff). In general, the distributed aspect of DNS was to reduce latency and network traffic. While this might not keep network traffic within your ISP's internal network, it can severely reduce latency even if you're on a large ISP like Comcast/Qwest/TimeWarner. My only guess as to why this appears to be true, is that most ISPs don't really give a crap about their DNS servers just so long as it's still running and hasn't imploded.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
You're right on all points. However, given Google's entry into this now, what motivation does any ISP have left for running its own DNS servers?
- pyre 17y ago
  Keeping traffic on it's own network vs having all DNS queries making a round-trip between their network and Google's DNS (ala Level3)? It's not like ISPs have ever needed an excuse to try and 'cut costs' by skimping on services. The difference is a greater majority of their customers use DNS than USENET.
  - thaumaturgy 17y ago
    DNS doesn't occupy a lot of bandwidth. DNS servers on the other hand can be irksome to deal with if you don't have to. Small ISPs are merely resellers; if their DSL customers f'rinstance use Google's DNS servers instead of the ISPs, the ISP actually has less network traffic coming into their racks. Plus, they no longer have to admin a DNS server. For larger ISPs, it may still be less trouble to just let their customers use Google's DNS instead.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Point taken.