On: Firefox’s Trusted Recursive Resolver DNS feature i...

[lol768]

>DNS over HTTPS is a great idea

Why is it better than DNS over TLS? All I can see here is increased overhead.

[PappaPatat → lol768]

Since HTTP(S) basically works everywhere and a new port (DNS over TLS on standard port 853) is guaranteed not to work everywhere.

[vetinari → PappaPatat]

Once DNS-over-HTTPS starts creating problems, port 443 to well-known IPs will be also not guaranteed to work everywhere.

[patrickmcmanus → lol768]

https://bitsup.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-benefits-of-https-fo...

[oxymoron → lol768]

Harder to distinguish between DNS queries and other traffic. Since a lot of censorship is DNS based that’s significant.

[kiriakasis → oxymoron]

This is really the main point.

I support this but it has its downsides, for example flixbus blocks YouTube on their free WiFi. I think they have all the rights to do it as some site are heavier to support than others and they might be forced to shut it off if it became common

(Also a lot of people don't have earphones on them an being beside someone watching "funny" YouTube videos at 3am is torture (end of personal rant...))

[yjftsjthsd-h → kiriakasis]

Wouldn't this be better served by bandwidth limiting/shaping?

[kiriakasis → yjftsjthsd-h]

that would mean that if many people used youtube they would all have terrible speed, which would make their wifi look of bad quality.

The primary purpose of their on board wifi is to buy tickets and check connections. In this case video streaming might really be more expensive than necessary

[yjftsjthsd-h → kiriakasis]

I mean limiting per-user bandwidth. So if you try to watch youtube on your personal 1Mb slice, good luck, but you won't drag down anyone else, and for the stated goals of buying tickets and such it's fine.