What are the pros and cons of using an alternative DNS instead of the ISP DNS server?

Question

I searched the web for answers, but I haven't found anything conclusive. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using an alternative DNS (for example, OpenDNS or Google DNS) as opposed to the default ISP DNS server?

Solution 1

• Open DNS has services related to their dns servers, such as phishing protection or parental controls, though you may have to sign up to configure them.

• Selecting a server with better response time can speed up browsing

• Open DNS now offers an encrypted DNS tool, which keeps anyone from seeing your DNS requests. No matter whose DNS servers you use, your ISP knows every webpage you visit, even if the webpage is SSL, the DNS request is not encrypted even though the connection to the website is SSL encrypted, so they came out with the tool to take care of that vulnerability.

So it can improve browsing speed and security, you may not get both depending on where you are.

Solution 2

some advantages:

• they can be more stable and not fall, when your provider fails

• they could be more trustfull (your provider could redirect those "not found" to an advertising page, while the openDNS or Google DNS say they don't do that)

• they could be faster (yes, your provider can be using a hardware that can't handle all the requests from their consumers)

Solution 3

My provider blocks "potentially unwanted sites" with their DNS server. For example - there is some torrent trackers, which I unable to reach because they're banned at provider. Cheap trick, but it's the one of the reasons why I am using google open dns.

Comments

[Admin]

possible duplicate of Should I use Google Public DNS service for my desktop?

[Admin]

That question is strictly about google DNS, this is more general.

[sean christe]

You should be aware that multiple ISPs have signed agreements with various industry groups (RIAA i.e.) to warn users that access copy written materials and reduce the quality of the user's service if they do not comply with the warnings. Bypassing the ISP block these sites via DNS is most likely the first step down this path.

[Moab]

Not "access", but "downloading illegal content". merely visiting a site will not get you warned. So much dis-information. They have to determine it is illegal content and that you are downloading it before you get a warning....news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57397452-261/…

[sean christe]

That is why I said "users that access..." As I said it is just the first step. The fact that the ISP blocks the site should be considered an implicit warning.

[Moab]

I can access a file without downloading it, in most democratic countries it is illegal for an isp to block a website. Comcast got sued for just that, and lost.

[sean christe]

That's true, block is not really the proper term. Not resolve the address would be more accurate. As far as I know no one has challenged that in court and since there are alternate name resolution services I don't think a challenge would get far. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not here for a legal argument. Simply wanted to let the poster know of a relatively recent development.