News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by bjslade on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:04AM (#16733598)
According to the FAQ[1], they also offer 9.9.9.10, which passes client subnet at the cost of other features.

[1] https://www.quad9.net/faq

Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by sajal83 on Monday April 02, 2018 @07:39AM (#16733732)
Fair enough, but most users won't care enough look it up and use 9.9.9.10 instead of 9.9.9.9 if they want better performance in exchange for allegedly lower privacy.

It appears 1.1.1.1 also does not pass client-subnet, atleast not by default. Queries to my authoritative from Google always includes client subnet, OpenDNS required request for whitelist. For Cloudflare its unclear.

Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by bscphil on Monday April 02, 2018 @01:40PM (#16736928)
>It appears 1.1.1.1 also does not pass client-subnet, atleast not by default.

Wow, this is actually a huge issue. Just as a simple test, I tried nslookup google.com for both 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8, and Cloudflare's responses ping at about 200ms, whereas Google's responses ping at ~10ms.

Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by mjevans on Monday April 02, 2018 @04:23PM (#16738931)
That also explains the abnormally low response time of CloudFlare's solution compared to the 2nd and 3rd place solutions; the geo-location lookups require more time to reach and resolve a decision and thus represent an increase in response time from the resolver (in exchange for improved latency in all future communications to the target server).
Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by dx034 on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @11:48AM (#16745815)
If you have a CF PoP close to you, the absent of it shouldn't really matter. Will only have an effect for those with a Google peering much closer than CF peering.
Re:DNS Performance compared: CloudFlare 1.1.1.1 x Google 8.8... by DesertBattery on Monday April 02, 2018 @08:25AM (#16733917)
Should, but does not.

  dig @8.8.8.8 o-o.myaddr.test.l.google.com txt +short 
  "74.125.46.11"
  "edns0-client-subnet 94.181.44.185/32"
  dig @9.9.9.10 o-o.myaddr.test.l.google.com txt +short
  "2620:171:57::240"