Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Getting downvoted for an on-topic relevant comment is pretty disappointing. The fact of the matter is that there are still small internet providers around that care about the privacy of their customers. Furthermore, anyone who thinks they are enhancing their privacy by using one of the large public DNS servers needs to do a reality check: you pay for your use of "free" public DNS servers by sharing the information about every single website that you visit. All an advertiser has to do to de-anonymize your browsing history in that case is to put a single unique domain name in a web page and trigger the browser to do a lookup. Do folks think that AT&T is the only large company that has a really shitty privacy track record when it comes to DNS?

I also stand by the claim that local DNS servers are beneficial. Not all of us are 1ms away from the major DNS providers. Transport networks are complicated, and those of us that do not have millions of dollars to build our own fibre directly to a data center where peering is available have to pay a latency price for sub-optimal transport routes. It is a fact that having a local DNS server will save you multiple round trips in such cases when the deployment is architect to do so. I did that because it makes browsing a little bit snappier. Saving a few 20ms RTTs might mean nothing to people living in a large city with a local internet exchange, but it does help those of us in rural remote communities that are distant from that infrastructure.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: