>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Anyone tried the Google DNS server (8.8.8.8)?
>>>>
>>>>I just switched to it out of curiousity. I could be imagining this but it certainly seems faster than others I've used - which surprised me since I would have thought the look-up process itself wouldn't have a great overall effect on retrieving a web page.
>>>
>>>What were your ping times to your prior DNS server? I'm seeing Google about +20 msec beyond my ISP's default DNS.
>>
>>Prefacing this with the fact I may not know what I'm talking about :-{
>>
>>But isn't that just going to compare how long it takes to hit the Google DNS compared to your ISP's DNS (which I'd expect to be quicker since there would less hops) and not how long it takes for the DNS to resolve the address?
>>
>>I've no idea how you would actually get a metric on the resolution time tho'
>>
>>Regards,
>>Viv
>
>You are saying "certainly seems faster" so I was looking for something outside DNS itself that might explain the difference. I doubt Google's microseconds are any faster than others. Caching practices could be having an effect, as some sites seem to have to hit a myriad of other sites to build a page (Yahoo JS, ad netwoks, etc.). The resolution time could very well be a factor.
>
>As far as resolution times, you might look at http://www.websitepulse.com/help/tools.php and play around a bit.
>
>Or you're dreaming, Viv. :-)

Google DNS seems to be an interesting experiment. Another case of Google looking at an old problem with fresh eyes (and brains).

I believe most ISPs treat providing DNS as an unpleasant chore - something they have to do, that costs money. Set up BIND on some old server, and try to forget about it. Well, these days, maybe not, but if they could do that, they would.

Some slimy ISPs even redirect your 404s to ad pages in an attempt to grub more $.

Which is more than just too bad, because if there's any service with a screaming need to be rock-solid, it's DNS.

Just the other day I cleaned out a DNS redirector/hijacker trojan from a family PC. The teenaged daughter managed to install it despite both AVG Free and Windows Defender on Vista32 with UAC enabled. A lot of people don't realize how scary redirected DNS/rogue DNS servers are. I used to think that a cracker's wet dream would be to pwn Windows/Microsoft Update, but now I'm thinking a major ISP's DNS would be comparable.

What Google might bring to DNS:

- high performance/high availability (can you think of anyone who hasn't had their ISP's DNS go down at some point?)

- cutting-edge security

- an expansion beyond the monoculture of BIND et al - although, if it becomes popular enough, it would become a monoculture of its own

- potentially, a reduction in propagation delays for DNS changes/updates, FWIW

- I believe they've already promised to "not be evil" e.g. no 404 redirects

Potential drawbacks:

- as you point out, delays due to at least one extra hop to reach Google DNS rather than the ISP's. I'd guess Google can mitigate this as well as anyone, with their existing PoP infrastructure to support search

- ISPs might not like having to forward DNS traffic on their outbound links, rather than just routing it internally

- If they wanted to be evil, Google could keep records of everything you look up - not that your current ISP can't do that, it's just that they're probably too lazy to do so