zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | persoanly
i use 4.2.2.1 and 4.2.2.2 as my dns best dns i know of |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 4.2.2.2 has not worked for me for a couple of weeks, now:
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| 4.2.2.2 still works. There may be a problem else where.
battleop@toybox4:~$ nslookup
> server 4.2.2.2
Default server: 4.2.2.2
Address: 4.2.2.2#53
> google.com
Server: 4.2.2.2
Address: 4.2.2.2#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Address: 209.85.171.100
Name: google.com
Address: 74.125.45.100
Name: google.com
Address: 74.125.67.100
> dslreports.com
Server: 4.2.2.2
Address: 4.2.2.2#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: dslreports.com
Address: 209.123.109.175 |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO | reply to zed260
4.2.2.1-6 have all worked at least for me, and due to location they're much faster thn OpenDNS. Especially 4.2.2.4-6; ping 'em and I get 12ms most of the time. |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to battleop
said by battleop  :4.2.2.2 still works. There may be a problem else where. Maybe an ACL, or just some local Level 3 issue. Their DNS servers, and they use "Anycast" on their DNS servers.
Not really a problem for me, just an observation. All three DNS providers, ATTIS (my ISP), OpenDNS, and Level 3 are using "Anycast", and all three ping within 12 ms of my location. The 'ns_bench' test generally shows a slight edge to the ATTIS DNS servers, so I only use the others for experimenting.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanS
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA | reply to iansltx
Did OpenDNS deploy a new DNS server cluster closer to Texas than Chicago, Illinois?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
