Virgin & DNS Servers

[Welshchris]

What are the better servers to use?

Virgins own or Open DNS?

Or are there any better ones?

I get a problem accessing some sites with Open DNS saying it cant resolve a DNS problem.

[Axegrinder]

OpenDNS works fine for me.

[tomjleeds]

Most routers (and Windows) will only allow two DNS servers to be specified. Your best bet in that case is to set one to OpenDNS and the other to Virgin's. Best of both worlds.

[eth01]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

Most routers (and Windows) will only allow two DNS servers to be specified. Your best bet in that case is to set one to OpenDNS and the other to Virgin's. Best of both worlds.

I can see your logic behind that -- it's not that effective though. there is big space between the two.

[tomjleeds]

Originally Posted by eth01

I can see your logic behind that -- it's not that effective though. there is big space between the two.

...eh?

[eth01]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

...eh?

VM DNS is internal, whereas OpenDNS isn't. What don't you understand?

VM DNS is much better than OpenDNS (when it works)

[tomjleeds]

Originally Posted by eth01

VM DNS is internal, whereas OpenDNS isn't. What don't you understand?

VM DNS is much better than OpenDNS (when it works)

So it's internal, so what? Faster resolution? In theory maybe, but not in practice.

[eth01]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

So it's internal, so what? Faster resolution? In theory maybe, but not in practice.

I'm afraid the DNS that VM are supplying customers with is much faster than OpenDNS...

As per:

6 47 ms 29 ms 26 ms 212.187.136.125
7 33 ms 38 ms 35 ms ae-4-4.ebr1.London1.Level3.net [4.69.133.102]
8 26 ms 29 ms 45 ms ae-11-51.car1.London1.Level3.net [4.68.116.15]
9 74 ms 203 ms 214 ms xe-3-3.r01.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8
.137]
10 26 ms 27 ms 25 ms 83.231.146.198
11 54 ms 27 ms 26 ms resolver1.opendns.com [208.67.222.222]

Trace complete.

5 7 ms 9 ms 10 ms cache1.service.virginmedia.net [194.168.4.100]

Trace complete.

p.s this is local to your uBr.

[tomjleeds]

I get around a 10-15ms ping to VM's DNS and a 20-25ms ping to OpenDNS. That 10ms is absolutely negligible - not only that, but it's not even the only limiting factor. The capability and load of the server itself is as much of an issue.

[eth01]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

I get around a 10-15ms ping to VM's DNS and a 20-25ms ping to OpenDNS. That 10ms is absolutely negligible - not only that, but it's not even the only limiting factor. The capability and load of the server itself is as much of an issue.

the millions of incoming connections give you that slightly low latency

[Horace]

I'd rather not have all those horribly busy and often congested London (notice London is misspelt in the later hops? )based links between me and my DNS. OpenDNS also often randomly blocks legitimate sites which I've mention before in my arguments against it.
If VM's DNS was as horrible as BT's (used to be) then fine but VM's DNS has worked flawlessly for me for years.

 1     2 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
 2    35 ms    14 ms     6 ms  10.133.224.1
 3    20 ms    26 ms    28 ms  midd-t2cam1-b-ge94.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.238.221]
 4    10 ms     7 ms    25 ms  midd-t3core-1b-ge-011-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.182.176.117]
 5     7 ms    26 ms     9 ms  cache1.service.virginmedia.net [194.168.4.100]

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    14 ms     9 ms    11 ms  10.133.224.1
  3    10 ms     8 ms    10 ms  midd-t2cam1-b-ge94.network.virginmedia.net [213.106.238.221]
  4    10 ms     6 ms     9 ms  midd-t3core-1b-ge-011-0.network.virginmedia.net [195.182.176.117]
  5    18 ms    19 ms    25 ms  man-bb-b-so-310-0.network.virginmedia.net [213.105.75.49]
  6    20 ms    37 ms    17 ms  po6-0.mctbb1.Manchester.opentransit.net [193.251.250.105]
  7    26 ms    25 ms    26 ms  po10-0.brsbb1.Bristol.opentransit.net [193.251.242.133]
  8    30 ms    30 ms    48 ms  so-5-2-0-0.loncr5.London.opentransit.net [193.251.243.37]
  9    26 ms    27 ms    28 ms  p16-2-0-2.r22.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.8.49]
 10    26 ms    31 ms    24 ms  xe-4-4.r01.londen03.uk.bb.gin.ntt.net [129.250.2.66]
 11    26 ms    25 ms    20 ms  83.231.146.198
 12    25 ms    35 ms    35 ms  resolver1.opendns.com [208.67.222.222]

[tomjleeds]

Originally Posted by eth01

the millions of incoming connections give you that slightly low latency

OK, so you're just going to ignore the fact that I've shot you down and post sentences which don't really make a lot of sense, neither are they particularly relevant. Oh well, no surprises there.

I'm no OpenDNS fanboy, I just like keeping my options open.

[dev]

if i didnt run my own i'd use VMs over OpenDNS's for one simple reason, VM's servers dont mess with the replies and actually tell me when something doesn't resolve.

[eth01]

Originally Posted by tomjleeds

OK, so you're just going to ignore the fact that I've shot you down and post sentences which don't really make a lot of sense, neither are they particularly relevant. Oh well, no surprises there.

I'm no OpenDNS fanboy, I just like keeping my options open.

it'd be nearly impossible to get the latency any lower than what it already is...

[tomjleeds]

Originally Posted by eth01

it'd be nearly impossible to get the latency any lower than what it already is...

I'm not suggesting anybody decrease their latency. What I'm contesting is your assertion that connection latency is the be-all and end-all of DNS resolution.