[AdGuard DNS] Beta

Discussion in 'Release Notes (Beta Versions)' started by vasily_bagirov, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. vasily_bagirov

    vasily_bagirov Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,899
    Hi!

    Today we release a new addition to Adguard family - Adguard DNS (although it is only in beta state yet). For more details, check our blog article.

    Follow Adguard DNS current state on GitHub: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardDNS

    Here you can discuss anything about it, ask your questions and make suggestions.
     
  2. ag_bug_finder

    ag_bug_finder Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Sounds good.

    ‘Default’: Ad Blocking + Stealth Mode + Browsing Security
    I don't like it how the default has Stealth Mode enabled.

    The 'Default' should only be Ad Blocking and Browsing Security.

    I've used Stealth Mode before, and honestly, its more trouble then its worth.
     
  3. vasily_bagirov

    vasily_bagirov Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,899
    Stealth Mode in this case works more like Spyware filter in regular Adguard versions.
     
  4. Boo Berry

    Boo Berry Moderator + Beta Tester Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,704
    Ironic, I was reading about this on the Github page earlier this morning. :p
     
  5. DonS

    DonS New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    I love that I can put this right into the router and adblock the whole network. This saves me from a long delayed project of learning how to put a HOST file on my router.

    After a bit of testing, Adguard DNS does the job, however, it's pretty slow. Is that a geographical thing, or a beta thing?
     
  6. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13,130
    Yes, it could be a geographical thing, that's why we need beta testing in the first place.

    What shows "ping 176.103.130.130" command in your case?

    Currently we cover two locations: US and Russia, but we plan to add more locations soon.
     
  7. DonS

    DonS New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=38.6 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=40.2 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=38.5 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=35.1 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=43.7 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=35.2 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=44.3 ms

    if I ping google DNS, I'm getting time=15 to 20 ms
     
  8. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13,130
    @DonS and where are you geographically?
     
  9. DonS

    DonS New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    near Toronto, Canada
     
  10. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13,130
    What about 176.103.130.131, how good is it?
    Primary US server is in NJ, secondary is in California.

    Also ping 30-40ms is not bad. The problem may be in the DNS resolution speed (server needs some time to warm up and cache all popular domains). As I see in the dashboard it currently has a 40ms overhead (should be zero when all popular domains are cached).
     
  11. DonS

    DonS New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    ping for 176.103.130.131 is 99-115 ms. Obviously this is the California server!

    I'll stick with it, and help get more domains cached.
     
  12. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13,130
    Thank you!
     
  13. funkymonkeyboy

    funkymonkeyboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1
    Ping times are slow but expected if my nearest server is in Russia. I'm in the United Kingdom.
    Looking forward to closer servers.

    PING 176.103.130.130 (176.103.130.130): 56 data bytes

    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=79.335 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=78.426 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.130: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=76.794 ms

    --- 176.103.130.130 ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 76.794/78.185/79.335/1.051 ms



    PING 176.103.130.131 (176.103.130.131): 56 data bytes

    64 bytes from 176.103.130.131: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=77.934 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.131: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=76.844 ms
    64 bytes from 176.103.130.131: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=75.474 ms

    --- 176.103.130.131 ping statistics ---
    3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 75.474/76.751/77.934/1.006 ms
     
  14. ag_bug_finder

    ag_bug_finder Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    You guys think thats slow.... look at my results.
    I'm in Sydney Australia.

    Pinging 176.103.130.130 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 176.103.130.130: bytes=32 time=354ms TTL=51
    Reply from 176.103.130.130: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=51
    Reply from 176.103.130.130: bytes=32 time=353ms TTL=51
    Reply from 176.103.130.130: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=51

    Ping statistics for 176.103.130.130:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 352ms, Maximum = 354ms, Average = 352ms


    Pinging 176.103.130.131 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 176.103.130.131: bytes=32 time=352ms TTL=50
    Reply from 176.103.130.131: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=50
    Reply from 176.103.130.131: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=50
    Reply from 176.103.130.131: bytes=32 time=351ms TTL=50

    Ping statistics for 176.103.130.131:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 351ms, Maximum = 352ms, Average = 351ms
     
  15. avatar

    avatar Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    13,130
    We will add a european server by the time of release.

    @ag_bug_finder
    Adding an Australian server may take more time:(
     
  16. DonS

    DonS New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Is there a place that we are discussing things that are being blocked that shouldn't be?
    I have a home automation item that won't connect to it's server.
     
  17. cyan

    cyan New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    8
    Can you add support for port other than 53 ? Like opendns/opennic.
    Most ISP from my country re-direct DNS request from port 53 to their own server. (for blocking certain website)
     
  18. ag_bug_finder

    ag_bug_finder Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,636
    Damn...not good... :(
     
  19. max2

    max2 Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    245
    Adguard DNS works great here! Even blocks those annoying video ads on my local news website app and CNN app on iOS!

    Way to go!
     
  20. max2

    max2 Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2014
    Messages:
    245
    The only thing I don't like is Adguard DNS doesn't work on 3g/4g networks :(