OpenDNS - Anyone?

[Harryc]

Just wondering if anyone here uses OpenDNS for their DNS services? My ISP has really bad DNS service and I switched to OpenDNS last week. So far it seems like a great service, but I know there has to be a downside to it....always is. Anyone?

[GomJabbar]

I've been using it for awhile with my AT&T AirCard. Seems to work better than the default AT&T cellular dns servers.

[rkawakami]

I've set up my ancient Netgear router with their DNS servers and it seems to work fine. A couple of times when this forum was inaccessible, OpenDNS popped up message with a general explanation of why it wasn't working (all of the other sites were okay). I'm using their basic (free) service and I haven't had any problems for the last six or seven months. My web access has always been a little bit slow and spotty at times (I'm almost at the maximum distance for DSL and there's been a problem with water leakage into the SBC junction box across the street) so I can't say that OpenDNS is contributing to any problems. I can say, that since I've been using them, I haven't had to reset my DSL modem that much because of a loss of connectivity. Before, it was almost a daily occurrence where I had to power-cycle the DSL modem in order to get back online. Looking at the connect stats on the Netgear, the LAN uptime is currently 1491 hours (2 months); so that's the last time it was turned off.

[RealBlackStuff]

Been using them about 7-8 months now, never had any problems whatsoever.
Never had to reset my router either. I'm on Adams Cable (5Mbps), using an unmodified Asus WL-520GU wifi router.

[wap32]

I've been using their IPs on my BIND server for a few months since my ISP's DNS servers tend to fail once in a while.

No problems so far.

[rkawakami]

The only "downside" that I can see so far is the Google-like search listing that's generated by the OpenDNS servers when you type in a URL that doesn't exist. For example, the previous company that I used to work for had the domain name of mvc.com. Enter that address in a browser and if you have the OpenDNS servers specified in your network connection/router, then you will get a list of hits related to "mvc".

[fuscob]

The only "downside" that I can see so far is the Google-like search listing that's generated by the OpenDNS servers when you type in a URL that doesn't exist. For example, the previous company that I used to work for had the domain name of mvc.com. Enter that address in a browser and if you have the OpenDNS servers specified in your network connection/router, then you will get a list of hits related to "mvc".

This is the part that I find annoying...I'd much rather have the browser tell me that it can't find anything at that address rather than the OpenDNS "search" page, which is not usually that helpful and also contains advertisements (albeit text-based ones). If I use alternate DNS servers, I usually use the ones in the range 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6, which I have always found to be fast and reliable.

[gburnore]

If I use alternate DNS servers, I usually use the ones in the range 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6, which I have always found to be fast and reliable.

They're namesevers belonging to level 3. While using someone elses' nameservers isn't exactly stealing, you do get what you get what you don't pay for. Some ISPs will block you when they figure out you're using their DNS, others don't.

[fuscob]

They're namesevers belonging to level 3. While using someone elses' nameservers isn't exactly stealing, you do get what you get what you don't pay for. Some ISPs will block you when they figure out you're using their DNS, others don't.

As far as I know, they are public DNS servers and have been for many years. They are among the most widely used; a Google search returns many forum threads where they are suggested. They also appear on many public DNS server lists available online.

[gburnore]

As far as I know, they are public DNS servers and have been for many years. They are among the most widely used; a Google search returns many forum threads where they are suggested. They also appear on many public DNS server lists available online.

And yet they're still owned solely by Level 3. Yeah, the public can SEE them, but they're not "public". People finding nameservers and telling others about them doesn't make them any less private property belonging to Level 3.

[GomJabbar]

They're namesevers belonging to level 3. While using someone elses' nameservers isn't exactly stealing, you do get what you get what you don't pay for. Some ISPs will block you when they figure out you're using their DNS, others don't.

I don't know what you are talking about. They offer free DNS service to individuals. If you are more than a small company, then that is a different story.
http://www.opendns.com/start/

OpenDNS is a venture-funded start-up with 15 million users of its free recursive DNS service. These users include consumers, schools and some businesses, which use OpenDNS to allow their employees to browse the Web. OpenDNS says it is handling more than 17 billion DNS queries per day with this service.

One advantage of OpenDNS is that it bundles Web content filtering with its DNS service. OpenDNS also operates PhishTank.com, a community site that fights phishing.

Users of the free OpenDNS service view advertisements when they type in the wrong Web address. OpenDNS makes money by selling ads for its re-direction service. OpenDNS emphasizes that it will continue to offer this free service.

Now OpenDNS is selling an ad-free version called OpenDNS Deluxe, which is geared toward small businesses.

OpenDNS also is announcing OpenDNS Enterprise, which provides more comprehensive Web filtering, auditing and reporting features, 24/7 support and service-level agreements.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/0 ... ml?hpg1=bn

[fuscob]

I don't know what you are talking about. They offer free DNS service to individuals. If you are more than a small company, then that is a different story.

I believe that gburnore is referring to my post about the 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.6 nameservers.

And yet they're still owned solely by Level 3. Yeah, the public can SEE them, but they're not "public". People finding nameservers and telling others about them doesn't make them any less private property belonging to Level 3.

I'm not going to have an argument with you about who is allowed to use these nameservers. I was simply offering a widely-recognized alternative to OpenDNS.

[ThinkRob]

And yet they're still owned solely by Level 3. Yeah, the public can SEE them, but they're not "public". People finding nameservers and telling others about them doesn't make them any less private property belonging to Level 3

1) Those addresses are unicast, so it's not like you're hammering some box that was never intended for public usage.

2) Level3 provide the service in exchange for the massive amount of traffic statistics that public usage provides. This was actually mentioned specifically on a networking mailing list (the name of which escapes me) which I recall reading some time ago.

OpenDNS actively censor their responses. They claim to only do it for malicious sites, and while I have no reason not to believe that claim, I'd rather not use a nameserver that has a proven record of returning false information (i.e. information in disagreement with the authoritative answer for a given record.)

[Harryc]

ThinkRob, I had read some of the same things about OpenDNS that you mentioned, and it is not my favorite choice for those reasons, but the fact remains that my ISP is very bad at managing and delivering DNS, and OpenDNS provides a much faster service. What are the better alternatives?

[gburnore]

OpenDNS actively censor their responses. They claim to only do it for malicious sites, and while I have no reason not to believe that claim, I'd rather not use a nameserver that has a proven record of returning false information (i.e. information in disagreement with the authoritative answer for a given record.)

I'd no idea that they do that. Facinating. I'm beginning to wonder if we should be offering DNS as a service for some small fee as there seems to be a great need for a cheap, rather than free service. (You get what you don't pay for)

[GomJabbar]

I think this concern about content filtering is much ado about nothing - at least for those with administrative rights for internet access.

Domain Tagging makes OpenDNS the easiest way to filter Web content on your network

@OpenDNS? #

By MarkMac Posted Wednesday 14th January 2009 13:46 GMT

"Trouble with OpenDNS is that they never return a NXDOMAIN result "

Open a (free) account with them, and you can turn off that feature via their Control Panel. Basically you can tell it to treat all DNS requests coming from your IP 'normally' and return NXDOMAIN as you'd hope for.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14 ... /#c_403194

OpenDNS #

By Geoff Johnson Posted Wednesday 14th January 2009 14:19 GMT

"Trouble with OpenDNS is that they never return a NXDOMAIN result "

Not a problem to most people. I'm usually picky but I'm prepared to be served a page full of adverts when I mistype a URL in return for a decent DNS service.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14 ... /#c_403248

http://blog.opendns.com/2006/08/04/gogg ... uld-we-do/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securi ... ugh_1.html

http://ktar.com/?nid=52&sid=1097628

[ThinkRob]

ThinkRob, I had read some of the same things about OpenDNS that you mentioned, and it is not my favorite choice for those reasons, but the fact remains that my ISP is very bad at managing and delivering DNS, and OpenDNS provides a much faster service. What are the better alternatives?

4.2.2.1 through 4.2.2.6

Fast (usually < 40ms to your location), and they don't forge responses to direct you to ad servers.

I think this concern about content filtering is much ado about nothing - at least for those with administrative rights for internet access.

That's all well and dandy, but what if you have a dynamic IP?

Also, it's more the principle of the thing: the fact that they censor sites that they think are "bad", coupled with the fact that they falsify responses to generate ad revenue makes me wonder about their intentions. Sure, they claim that they only blackhole queries to malicious sites, but... well... the old addage "faithful in little things, faithful in big things" comes to mind. As far as I'm concerned, they already demonstrated their true intentions when they started 1) falsifying non-existant records 2) intercepting queries for Google so as to route them through their "revenue-shared" custom Google search.

I guess if they offered a really compelling advantage over one of the many, many public resolvers I'd think differently, but given that they don't offer much of anything (other than an incredibly successful "grassroots" advertising campaign), my recommendation is to steer clear.

[GomJabbar]

Also, it's more the principle of the thing: the fact that they censor sites that they think are "bad", coupled with the fact that they falsify responses to generate ad revenue makes me wonder about their intentions. Sure, they claim that they only blackhole queries to malicious sites, but... well... the old addage "faithful in little things, faithful in big things" comes to mind. As far as I'm concerned, they already demonstrated their true intentions when they started 1) falsifying non-existant records 2) intercepting queries for Google so as to route them through their "revenue-shared" custom Google search.

That is an option, true it is the default option, but nevertheless one can opt out and not have any filtering at all with OpenDNS. See the link in Red above (and quotes).

Personally I find the default option just fine.