upvote

points

by akerl_10 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby surgical_fire10 hours ago|
next
[-]
I used to use 1.1.1.1. I still had issues.

Quad9 behaves exactly as I expect a DNS to work, in the sense that I only remember I use it when the topic of DNS pops up.

reply
upvoteby akerl_10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Your claim was that 1.1.1.1 was blocking sites.

Are you saying now you just had issues with the quality of service? Or do you want to provide more details to substantiate the claim that they were blocking sites?

reply
upvoteby surgical_fire9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, I do not keep any logs from domain name resolution from the DNS service I used from 7+ years ago. If you do, I commend you.

I used the term "blocking" in a loose sense. I have no idea if Cloudflare was failing to resolve certain domains because it is a shitty service, or if it was ordered to block those domain names by its government, or if it was actively not resolving domain names because it thought a good idea to be a sort of arbiter and gatekeeper. I suspect the last option, but it is just speculation.

What I can affirm is that I had issues more than once with domain name resolution when I used 1.1.1.1. After it annoyed me enough I switched to Quad9, and it has been great ever since, which is why I recommend it as a user of their service.

reply
upvoteby longislandguido4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> I have no idea if Cloudflare was failing to resolve certain domains because it is a shitty service, or if it was ordered to block those domain names by its government, or if it was actively not resolving domain names because it thought a good idea to be a sort of arbiter and gatekeeper.

I'm going to go with option D) whatever shitty site you were browsing to had a broken DNS or more likely DNSSEC configuration and Cloudflare was correct to not serve a corrupt response.

99% of the time, tales of "they're blocking my site! you guys are nazis!" always turn out to have a root cause of broken DNS configuration.

reply
upvoteby surgical_fire4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> I'm going to go with option D) whatever shitty site you were browsing to had a broken DNS or more likely DNSSEC configuration and Cloudflare was correct to not serve a corrupt response.

And once I switched DNS I could browse it normally.

This does not align quite well with the scenario you propose.

> "they're blocking my site! you guys are nazis!"

I said no such thing. I said it was a shitty DNS because it failed at the thing I was trying to use it for.

reply
upvoteby akerl_9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don’t keep DNS logs at all. But I also don’t show up 7 years later trash talking a company or product based on guesswork and fear.
reply
upvoteby surgical_fire9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not based in "guesswork and fear". It is a first-person account of someone that used their service. A user review, if you will.

There's this thing - when you offer a service to the public, the users of your service, can, will, and should review your service.

So, yes, I am free to "trash talk" a service that was, frankly, terrible at its job in providing domain name resolution. That works as any other user review, a data point so other users may switch away from a bad provider to a better one.

I imagine if someone goes to a restaurant and they their hot dish is served cold, if your response to the user review is a silly request for proof that the food was indeed served cold, and whining that their review is "trash talking based on fear and guesswork".

reply
upvoteby akerl_9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If you said that they served you cold food because the US government made them do it, yea, I’d think you were nuts.
reply
upvoteby surgical_fire7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And that's not what I said?

I offered some possibilities of why they did a shitty job in providing naming resolution. I even speculated what was the most likely one (not the one you mentioned).

But it's okay, at this point I have very little optimism regarding your reading ability.

reply
upvoteby hirako200010 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Because that would be subject to the whim of the provider, who subject to court orders would have to oblige to continue operating as US entity.
reply
upvoteby akerl_10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How does that differ from Quad9? You’re subject to Swiss laws, so there’s still a government involved? And you’re now hosted in an area where the US government has far fewer limitations on what they can attempt.
reply
upvoteby Kwpolska9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Quad9 is based in Switzerland, but the three founders-sponsors are US-based [0], so I’m not sure if it can be considered 100% safe from US government intervention.

[0] https://quad9.net/about/sponsors/

reply
upvoteby KomoD8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The ASN and stuff is also operated by a US entity it seems like:

  ASHandle:       AS19281
  Street:         CleanerDNS Inc. dba Quad9
  Street:         1442A Walnut Street, Suite 501
  City:           Berkeley
  State/Prov:     CA
  Country:        US
They also have servers in the US, so that's yet another reason not to consider them "100% safe from US government intervention"
reply
upvoteby akerl_9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Also a quick search suggests that Switzerland has made Internet providers in-country block DNS results in the past.
reply