Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches Public DNS Resolver
AdmiralXyz writes "Google has announced the launch of their free DNS resolution service, called Google Public DNS. According to their blog post, Google Public DNS uses continuous record prefetching to avoid cache misses — hopefully making the service faster — and implements a variety of techniques to block spoofing attempts. They also say that (unlike an increasing number of ISPs), Google Public DNS behaves exactly according to the DNS standard, and will not redirect you to advertising in the event of a failed lookup. Very cool, but of course there are questions about Google's true motivations behind knowing every site you visit."
They state very bluntly that IP addresses are expunged from the logs after 48 hours, and that no data is shared with Google Accounts or other Google services. They still get to play with a lot of aggregated data, but this seems like a fairly non-evil way to do it. Good for them. http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq.html#privacy
Congratulations, this would then be the first free service that I know of which doesn't do redirect ! ;-)
I guess they're using that as a selling point and to come of "nicer". If they're just after datamining the DNS requests, this service can happily run on negative income, because it improves Google's other things and provides them even more data.
Google is datamining everywhere and everything already.
but they didn't want too much brilliance all in one place.
Their they're doing there hair.
OpenDNS hijacks Google searches, which could be part of Google's motivation also.
fEEL FREE TO OPT OUT AT ANY TIME.
They have a great program for that!
If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
everything resolves to Google's proxies.
Really?
You, sir, are a liar.
Cue *whoosh* in 3..2.. actually, I still don't get it. Either you're trolling because you hate Google, or there's some obscure joke that I still don't understand. I really don't get how your list of crap it requires (most of which doesn't exist or doesn't apply to DNS) is funny -- are Google known for requiring random stuff like that?
I mean, they don't even touch NX:
That's more than you can say for most ISP-level resolvers.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm not fearful of the current Google, I'm fearful of the Google when we're three generations of leadership down the road and someone with fewer scruples is at the helm. What we need now more than ever is rock-solid privacy laws in this country that put looking at someone's data on par with searching their home... it can be done, but you need to get warrants and have a damn good reason to be doing it.
There is a lot of amazing advantages to having your data aggregated the way that Google has it, and it's not rocket science to manage the downsides.
We put a cache in your cache so you can browse while you browse.
disregard that, I suck cocks.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
And sorry, but just to complete the thought, there's a very good reason why Google would want to do this even if they don't get any data mining or ad revenue in any direct way: Think about all the other services (OpenDNS or ISPs) that redirect failed searches to their own search page. Every time that happens, that's a search that doesn't go through Google. As far as Google is concerned, you getting a proper response of "This page doesn't exist" is good for them, because they know your next stop will be Google.com.
Google's DNS service defends against DDoS amplification attacks by using rate-limiting techniques. From Google:
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
This is a good think
It's also double plus ironic.
Oh crap! I reported the Minimum time, not the average! Here is the full report:
(Min | Avg | Max | Std.Dev |Reliab%)
My university:
Cached Name | 0.001 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 100.0
Uncached Name | 0.008 | 0.060 | 0.225 | 0.065 | 100.0
DotCom Lookup | 0.181 | 3.984 | 4.203 | 0.633 | 100.0
OpenDNS (208. 67.220.220)
Cached Name | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 100.0
Uncached Name | 0.008 | 0.066 | 0.190 | 0.053 | 100.0
DotCom Lookup | 0.009 | 0.131 | 0.198 | 0.064 | 100.0
Level 3 (4. 2. 2. 3)
Cached Name | 0.024 | 0.025 | 0.028 | 0.001 | 100.0
Uncached Name | 0.026 | 0.071 | 0.206 | 0.056 | 100.0
DotCom Lookup | 0.025 | 0.081 | 0.191 | 0.058 | 100.0
Google (8.8.8.8)
Cached Name | 0.044 | 0.061 | 0.206 | 0.038 | 100.0
Uncached Name | 0.048 | 0.144 | 0.322 | 0.075 | 97.9
DotCom Lookup | 0.069 | 0.158 | 0.261 | 0.051 | 100.0
No, but we're smart enough to realize that no one is going to pay out of pocket to provide all the services that Google does for free with no revenue model at all, not even to pay for the infrastructure servers and network necessary to do it.
I'll make you a deal. Multi-billionaire technology philanthropist that you seem to be, you set up a company to compete with Google, one that provides all that they do and that has exactly zero sources of revenue, and I'll willingly become your fanboy.
The practical situation is that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. When Google came along, we were headed towards every web site--especially search engines and directories--pushing out more and more pop-ups, pop-unders, interstitials, graphics-heavy, annoying ads, and they changed that. God forbid any of them actually contribute back to the community in the form of numerous open source projects and free services.
Google changed all that by providing a much more customer-friendly "less is more" philosophy, and their customers have supported their efforts in a very free market-friendly way. So while you can take potshots at targeted advertising if you want, I honestly can't think of a less obtrusive and relatively harmless revenue model that can support all that Google does and how much they are contributing to advancing technology.
While I'd love for someone to volunteer to do all that Google does without making money for it, given that that's not going to happen, yeah, targeted advertising is about the least annoying way I can think of to get the bills paid and continue providing service.
Google is datamining everywhere and everything already.
When I first read about this, I immediately thought about datamining. But after another second, I figured that I would prefer Google to have this information than Verizon (where my caching DNS server currently forwards to). It is true that Google is better at datamining, but do keep in mind that whoever is providing your DNS service has the information about your DNS requests.
Another difference between Google and your ISP is that your ISP knows who you are from your IP address. So they can link DNS resolution requests to specific, named, customers. Google can't do that directly.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Brief history lesson:
DARPA asked BBN to build the arpanet. They built and owned Autonomous System Number 1. (ASN1)
BBN split into BBN Technologies and BBN Networking. BBN Technologies went of and did their own thing. BBN Networking kept ASN1 and grew into a tier 1 ISP.
GTE bought BBN Networking and renamed the division GTE Internet ( aka GTEI )
Southern Bell bought GTE but wasn't allowed to keep all of it due to monopoly laws put in place during the Ma Bell breakup. They renamed the Telco part Verizon and spun off the infringing internet bit as Genuity.
Genuity was funded through a 'guaranteed' $2B revolving credit line by Verizon.
Verizon lobbied enough people to overturn enough of regulations such that they no longer needed Genuity at all, and dumped the loan.
Genuity's remaing assets were sold in bankruptcy to Level 3 Communications, including ASN1, the 4.0.0.0/8 and 8.0.0.0/8 ARIN allocations and the gtei.net name.