History of 4.2.2.2

[HalfEatenPie]

So we all know the historic 4.2.2.2 DNS server.  Currently announced by Level3, these DNS servers are sometimes routed to the local DNS Server run by your respective ISP (if they so choose to).  

Well I came across this article a long time ago, but I'll just drop it down here: http://www.tummy.com/articles/famous-dns-server/

Comments?  Thoughts?

Personally I find it absolutely hilarious.

 

[drmike]

Proud to say I've been using 4.2.2.[1-6] servers probably since their very early days.   Works quite good and always has.

Funny that Level3 can't shake the use and get people from using such.   Considering how much OpenDNS sold for with minimal addon outside of generic lookup the 4.2.2.[1-6] DNS servers have some realistic large dollar value.  Who knows why they operate such...  Probably selling look up data, I mean one has to assume.

 

[KuJoe]

I read that a while back and stopped using 4.2.2.2 after that.

 

[AuroraZero]

I can honestly say I have never, nor would ever, use those. They have never felt right to me, and I guess that was a good thing.

 

[HN-Matt]

Does anyone want to argue re: Google vs. OpenDNS?

 

[HalfEatenPie]

Does anyone want to argue re: Google vs. OpenDNS?

Haha personally I always preferred Google since if you send in a DNS Query that doesn't have an A Record OpenDNS would then redirect you to a Search instead of a "Server Not Found" or "Record Not Found".  

That search redirect always bothers me.  

Of course this was a long time ago so maybe they've recently changed it, but yeah.  

 

[HN-Matt]

I have no worthwhile knowledge of either, but OpenDNS seems intriguing.

 

[KuJoe]

Now that Cisco owns OpenDNS and will be integrating it into it's infrastructure I might give them a shot.

 

[Leyton]

Haha personally I always preferred Google since if you send in a DNS Query that doesn't have an A Record OpenDNS would then redirect you to a Search instead of a "Server Not Found" or "Record Not Found".


That search redirect always bothers me.


Of course this was a long time ago so maybe they've recently changed it, but yeah.

This always used to irritate me - that, and the 'automatic typo correction' they once had, which on occasion would redirect legitimate domains like 'site.co' to ' site.com'.


But, when I was approached by a friend a year or so ago for a network-wide parental control software, I tried out OpenDNS again, to find those two "features" depreciated. Plain sailing from there whenever I have used OpenDNS - but, in honesty when stuck for a resolver, Google's are easier to remember.

 

[NetDepot-KH]

It seems I do have some problem with the Level(3) DNS Server and Google is always working good for me.

 

[KuJoe]

But, when I was approached by a friend a year or so ago for a network-wide parental control software, I tried out OpenDNS again, to find those two "features" depreciated.

OpenDNS is the only DNS servers my daughter will know because of their free filtering.

 

[HalfEatenPie]

This always used to irritate me - that, and the 'automatic typo correction' they once had, which on occasion would redirect legitimate domains like 'site.co' to ' site.com'.


But, when I was approached by a friend a year or so ago for a network-wide parental control software, I tried out OpenDNS again, to find those two "features" depreciated. Plain sailing from there whenever I have used OpenDNS - but, in honesty when stuck for a resolver, Google's are easier to remember.

Well glad they got rid of it. 

It seems I do have some problem with the Level(3) DNS Server and Google is always working good for me.

Unless your ISP is Level3 Directly, then Level3 may have blocked your IP range directly.  Technically it's not a "Public" DNS server (unlike Google's), and therefore is only supposed to be for Level3 and its' clients.  From the article:

According to Richard Golodner, Cisco support also tells people to use it for testing,

The best reason why not is that Level 3 is under no obligation to provide this service to the public and there are several reports I found that they're trying to discourage people from using it.

 

[nunim]

Haha personally I always preferred Google since if you send in a DNS Query that doesn't have an A Record OpenDNS would then redirect you to a Search instead of a "Server Not Found" or "Record Not Found".  

That search redirect always bothers me.  

Of course this was a long time ago so maybe they've recently changed it, but yeah.  

Level3 did this at some point, I made a thread on it actually:



Does anyone know if L3 is still doing DNS redirect ?  I haven't touched 4.2.2.1/4.2.2.2 since that thread as Google's public DNS does not pull any such shenanigans... Yet...

 

[Nyr]

Does anyone know if L3 is still doing DNS redirect ?

They stopped soon after that and had been clean since.

 

[Husky]

Haha personally I always preferred Google since if you send in a DNS Query that doesn't have an A Record OpenDNS would then redirect you to a Search instead of a "Server Not Found" or "Record Not Found".  

That search redirect always bothers me.  

Of course this was a long time ago so maybe they've recently changed it, but yeah.  

A redirect that is RFC violating. That's what lost my vote for OpenDNS. If a domain doesn't exist I want NXDOMAIN to be returned damnit!

 

[lbft]

At least you need to opt-in to OpenDNS to see it though - unlike when Verisign tried to do it for the whole .com and .net TLDs with Site Finder in 2003. I'm surprised they didn't try that again later.