CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service
-
@dbeato said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
@tim_g said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
Aaaannnnnddddd it fails already....
Looks like I'm sticking with Google DNS for now.
Mmm it is working here very fast too.
It works for me too.
-
Anyone using AT&T having issues using 1.1.1.1? It resolves to CloudFlare, however, ping latency is 1ms and a tracert only has one hop which is the 1.1.1.1. Seems like that IP is assigned to the onsite AT&T modem. Is it even worth trying to explain to an AT&T support rep? Seems like it may be a long phone call with no resolution.
-
@i3 Have you tried using the secondary 1.0.0.1 server?
-
@i3 said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
Anyone using AT&T having issues using 1.1.1.1? It resolves to CloudFlare, however, ping latency is 1ms and a tracert only has one hop which is the 1.1.1.1. Seems like that IP is assigned to the onsite AT&T modem. Is it even worth trying to explain to an AT&T support rep? Seems like it may be a long phone call with no resolution.
It is also definitely worth phone calls or something because
- It is not a private IP address
- AT&T does not own it
- AT&T is not allowed to steal traffic.
-
@jaredbusch said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
- AT&T is not allowed to steal traffic.
If this is on the modem, it's a bit weird as it is local and not at AT&T.
-
@i3 Confirmed that AT&T isn’t working correctly.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/fixing-reachability-to-1-1-1-1-globally/
-
Why would ATT do this, use a public ip for an internal ip address on their devices? a public ip they dont own or have control over, to boot.
-
@momurda said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
Why would ATT do this, use a public ip for an internal ip address on their devices? a public ip they dont own or have control over, to boot.
Not for any smart reason. But they did it SO long ago and got away with it for decades so one has to wonder... was it really a bad decision?
-
@scottalanmiller Yes i was thinking they did this because this address space was unassigned for 30 years. But what is the purpose? Is unallocated public address space usable in any way?
-
@momurda said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
@scottalanmiller Yes i was thinking they did this because this address space was unassigned for 30 years. But what is the purpose? Is unallocated public address space usable in any way?
If you are an ISP, yes.
-
I feel like I have a memory of AT&T using 1.1.1.1 back in like 1995. Maybe I'm just making that up, you know how memories are. But that feels like some ancient addressing thing that we knew about. I'm not sure that we knew that AT&T didn't own it. But we knew that they were using it. It was for something normal.
-
@aaronstuder 's link is very informative about the issue. Not just ATT but other isp around the world did it as well. I still dont know why they wouldnt just use private address space for these internal device communications
-
@momurda said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
@aaronstuder 's link is very informative about the issue. Not just ATT but other isp around the world did it as well. I still dont know why they wouldnt just use private address space for these internal device communications
because 1.1.1.1 is simple. you don't get much simpler. And it will not conflict with anything else in the network
-
@jaredbusch said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
@momurda said in CloudFlare Launches Privacy First DNS Service:
@aaronstuder 's link is very informative about the issue. Not just ATT but other isp around the world did it as well. I still dont know why they wouldnt just use private address space for these internal device communications
because 1.1.1.1 is simple. you don't get much simpler. And it will not conflict with anything else in the network
Yeah, with no one else using it publicly, it was super easy for ISPs to coopt.
-
Maybe they were using 1.1.1.1 as a null route?
