Google Launches Free Public DNS Service

[enyceckk101]

Use this command

XP users: Start => Run => CMD
Vista/7: Start => Search => CMD

Ping the site u go the most

EX.
Ping www.google.com

Ping www.youtube.com

Ping www.yahoo.com


P.S Google only faster by 0.1%. Make no diff in my test.

For Privacy issue, pls check this link

http/code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html

CK

 

[enyceckk101]

Result

Google dns

www.google.com min 15ms max 16ms avg 15ms

www.youtube.com min 28ms max 35ms avg 30ms

www.yahoo.com min 14ms max 15ms avg 14ms


optimum online dns

www.google.com min 14ms max 16ms avg 15ms

www.youtube.com min 41ms max 42ms avg 41ms

www.yahoo.com min 14ms max 18ms avg 15ms

OpenDNS

www.google.com min 7ms max 8ms avg 7ms

www.yahoo.com min 14ms max 16ms avg 14ms

www.youtube.com min 27ms max 27ms avg 27ms

 

[bunz_of_steel]

OpenDNS user here and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE their parental controls and tracking, site blocking and url logging. I have no issues with Google offering free DNS. If micro$oft can have a monopoly so can Google. It's the fat capitalistic way of life. Besides ISP's have a monopoly and I don't have a choice. Good for Google and OpenDNS.

 

[truerock]

If I understand correctly - please tell me if I am incorrect - the federal government requires that ISPs log which IP address you use. This information allows the government to keep track of what you do on the internet. So, for example, if you illegaly download a music file or DVD the government will ask your ISP to prove that your IP address was used to do that. According to Google's privacy statement, Google will not archive information about your IP address. Of course, more importantly is that you don't want Google to record the MAC address of your router because your MAC address iidentifies exactly who did something. IP addresses tend to change from time to time.

Do I correctly understand the situation?

 

[ssalim]

Go Google!

 

[truerock]

My post had a typo. It is the MAC address of your modem that is used to identify what you did on the internet. NOT the MAC address of your router.

 

[nalerian]

DNS only resolves the name you are connecting to and matches it to an IP address. Your ISP may not immediately know what name (www.somethingincriminating.com) but will know its ip address 192.168.6.66 that you are pulling data from.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, like I want Google recording every site I visit and redirecting me to Google search results every time I mistype an URL. I'll stick with my ISP's no-redirect DNS servers and the various others that I use.

 

[Ciuy]

i use it , everything works ... the same .... only that google page appeares with a fade effect now.

 

[joesmith]

The Google page (fade) change is related to a separate update and is unrelated to DNS.

 

[toastninja17]

[citation][nom]nothanksgoogle[/nom]Yeah, like I want Google recording every site I visit and redirecting me to Google search results every time I mistype an URL. I'll stick with my ISP's no-redirect DNS servers and the various others that I use.[/citation]

Troll.

 

[toastninja17]

Ok so maybe you're not really a troll..

 

[spectrewind]

I don't get it.

DNS is a resolver. Nothing more. Even Google will have to "iterate" an upstream resolution query to the authoritative DNS servers on the Internet, TLDs such as .ORG or .GOV, for when it's on .COM TLD cannot find the zone listing.

If this is BIND compatible, DNS cache poisoning should still be possible (my guess).

There is just not much here to go on. I'm not sold on this.

Network folks will understand this:
On the cheeky front, I can see it failing pretty easily when many people change their DNS numbers to Google's numbers, and someone at Google makes the mistake of adding a root zone of "." to their upstream query servers.

Oops!

 

[bbr81]

What a bias report. If you class yourself as a journalist you shouldn;t be slagging off the company in the report but show both sides. Unless Tomshardware is anti google!!????

 

[K2N hater]

People be careful. Google is quite too powerful already. Powerful enough to control all the internet contents you have "avaiable"...

 

[saint19]

I'm testing now...let's see how this works...

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Seems like just another effort to somehow generate additional revenue. After all, generating revenue is the name of the game.

 

[Guest]

bbr81: come on, I don't know about journalism ethics, but all that is written brings explicit or implicit thoughts, and I prefer to see writers who show his believes instead of trying to be political and imparcial