Most active commenters
  • (3)

←back to thread

1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

(blog.cloudflare.com)
1895 points _l4jh | 44 comments | 01 Apr 18 12:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.641s | source | bottom
1. nubela ◴[01 Apr 18 12:42 UTC] No.16727977[source]▶
$ ping 1.1.1.1

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=47 time=214.866 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=173.416 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=45 time=256.007 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=45 time=196.638 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=45 time=294.694 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=45 time=314.883 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=47 time=335.099 ms

(From Singapore)

Google's 8.8.8.8 has about <4ms

replies(25): >>16727997 #>>16728003 #>>16728005 #>>16728021 #>>16728025 #>>16728075 #>>16728081 #>>16728094 #>>16728238 #>>16728298 #>>16728303 #>>16728369 #>>16728396 #>>16728424 #>>16728435 #>>16728820 #>>16729018 #>>16729061 #>>16729189 #>>16729269 #>>16729393 #>>16729428 #>>16729559 #>>16730054 #>>16731459 #
2. wakokueh ◴[01 Apr 18 12:46 UTC] No.16727997[source]▶
PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=2.099 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=2.073 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.963 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=2.089 ms

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=1.908 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.888 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.993 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.891 ms

From SG too. Could it be... just you?

replies(2): >>16728014 #>>16728499 #
3. bufferoverflow ◴[01 Apr 18 12:49 UTC] No.16728003[source]▶
I get roughly the same 45-48ms from the EU for both.
replies(2): >>16728012 #>>16728188 #
4. jjoonathan ◴[01 Apr 18 12:49 UTC] No.16728005[source]▶
Sorry man :(

Things are a bit quicker in the US:

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=0.421 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=0.645 ms

replies(1): >>16728335 #
5. relyio ◴[01 Apr 18 12:51 UTC] No.16728012[source]▶
~3ms average for both from Western Europe
6. isatty ◴[01 Apr 18 12:52 UTC] No.16728014[source]▶
Just him. Starhub Fiber:

     ping 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=3.111 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=3.172 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=3.301 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=3.018 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=3.218 ms
    ^C
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.018/3.164/3.301/0.096 ms
fwiw Google DNS is around the same, 2.942ms average.
replies(1): >>16728120 #
7. traspler ◴[01 Apr 18 12:53 UTC] No.16728021[source]▶
If pings are anything to go by I should probably stay with Google (or my ISP, they ping at 1ms):

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=57

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=57

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=57

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=57

Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=57

Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=57

Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=57

Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=57

(Switzerland)

8. therealmarv ◴[01 Apr 18 12:53 UTC] No.16728025[source]▶
Google's ones are also faster here by 8ms (Cyprus)
9. veidr ◴[01 Apr 18 13:07 UTC] No.16728075[source]▶
Tokyo, Japan:

    [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$  ping 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=2.310 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=2.287 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=2.103 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=2.785 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=2.276 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=2.646 ms
    ^C
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2.103/2.401/2.785/0.236 ms
    [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ 
    [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ 
    [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$ ping 8.8.8.8
    PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=2.217 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=1.837 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=1.838 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=2.010 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=1.827 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=2.056 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=1.807 ms
    ^C
    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    7 packets transmitted, 7 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.807/1.942/2.217/0.145 ms
    [mason@iMac-Pro-No-5 fubastardo (master)]$
replies(2): >>16728168 #>>16728186 #
10. osrpt ◴[01 Apr 18 13:09 UTC] No.16728081[source]▶
Both are not fast in China. :(
11. zzzcpan ◴[01 Apr 18 13:11 UTC] No.16728094[source]▶
Anycast is not based on latency, so that's normal.
12. sho ◴[01 Apr 18 13:17 UTC] No.16728120{3}[source]▶
Interesting, mine is bad too. From singtel:

     Host                                                  Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1. 192.168.1.254                                         0.0%    75    1.3   1.6   1.1  14.8   1.6
  2. bbXXX-XXX-XXX-XX.singnet.com.sg                       0.0%    75    3.4   2.8   1.9  18.7   2.5
  3. 202.166.123.134                                       0.0%    75    3.2   3.5   2.7  15.9   2.0
  4. 202.166.123.133                                       0.0%    75    3.0   3.0   2.4   6.6   0.7
  5. ae8-0.tp-cr03.singnet.com.sg                          0.0%    75    3.1   3.3   2.8   6.9   0.7
  6. ae4-0.tp-er03.singnet.com.sg                          0.0%    75    2.9   3.1   2.6   6.7   0.5
  7. 203.208.191.197                                       0.0%    75    7.8   4.6   2.9  18.3   3.6
  8. 203.208.149.138                                       0.0%    75    3.0   7.5   2.7  67.2  13.4
  9. 203.208.153.126                                       0.0%    75  182.8 186.9 174.4 327.7  20.5
     203.208.172.226
     203.208.172.178
     203.208.158.50
     203.208.152.214
     203.208.173.106
     203.208.149.58
     203.208.149.30
  10. ix-xe-0-1-2-0.tcore2.pdi-palo-alto.as6453.net         0.0%    74  201.4 190.5 183.9 210.1   5.9
  11. if-ae-5-2.tcore2.sqn-san-jose.as6453.net              0.0%    74  181.4 184.7 179.4 197.9   4.6
  12. if-ae-1-2.tcore1.sqn-san-jose.as6453.net              0.0%    74  177.8 177.3 172.0 190.0   4.8
  13. 63.243.205.106                                        0.0%    74  179.2 184.2 179.1 196.2   4.5
  14. 1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com                      0.0%    74  191.9 184.7 172.4 202.3   6.6
Looks like singtel has some bad routing rules for Cloudflare and it's going through to the USA rather than hitting a local PoP.

Might send CloudFlare a quick email as they'll probably want singtel to correct this.

replies(1): >>16728312 #
13. gizmodo59 ◴[01 Apr 18 13:31 UTC] No.16728168[source]▶
How are you getting those single digit times? I can never get below 15 ms for both Google and CloudFlare. Any tips to improve this or its beyond my control?
replies(2): >>16728276 #>>16728370 #
14. technion ◴[01 Apr 18 13:38 UTC] No.16728186[source]▶
You're just trying to make Australians jealous aren't you?

    ping 1.1.1.1

    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58

    ping 8.8.8.8

    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=59
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=374ms TTL=59
replies(3): >>16728234 #>>16728325 #>>16728495 #
15. agumonkey ◴[01 Apr 18 13:38 UTC] No.16728188[source]▶
EU, but my network setup is shitty as one can be:

    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    23 packets transmitted, 20 received, 13% packet loss, time 22093ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 37.756/51.634/75.856/12.714 ms

    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    7 packets transmitted, 7 received, 0% packet loss, time 6007ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.920/43.627/52.355/4.547 ms
same same
16. systoll ◴[01 Apr 18 13:49 UTC] No.16728234{3}[source]▶
I'm getting ~60 and ~50 from Canberra.
17. staz ◴[01 Apr 18 13:49 UTC] No.16728238[source]▶
From Belgium, not much of a difference

        [:~] % ping 1.1.1.1
        PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=22.0 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=21.1 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=21.8 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=21.0 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=21.8 ms
        64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=21.2 ms
        ^C
        --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
        6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5009ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 21.023/21.509/22.031/0.399 ms
        [:~] % ping 8.8.8.8
        PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=26.4 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=26.6 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=26.7 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=26.4 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=26.7 ms
        64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=25.9 ms
        ^C
        --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
        6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5010ms
        rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 25.925/26.501/26.790/0.344 ms
18. zzzcpan ◴[01 Apr 18 14:00 UTC] No.16728276{3}[source]▶
Big cities are within half a ms range of various PoPs and IXes on fiber. Makes it possible to go even below 0.5 ms.
19. ◴[01 Apr 18 14:03 UTC] No.16728298[source]▶
20. smoe ◴[01 Apr 18 14:04 UTC] No.16728303[source]▶
From Bogotá, Colombia it is slightly faster than Google:

  ~% ping 1.1.1.1  
  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=11.0 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=10.9 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=10.5 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=10.0 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=13.0 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=10.1 ms
  ^C
  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5006ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 10.037/10.953/13.052/1.010 ms

  ~% ping 8.8.8.8  
  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=14.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=14.5 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=13.5 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=13.2 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=14.0 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=14.8 ms
  ^C
  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5008ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 13.260/14.151/14.823/0.585 ms
21. chanux ◴[01 Apr 18 14:05 UTC] No.16728312{4}[source]▶
What's the tool you used there?

From MyRepublic 8.8.8.8 is 2 hops shorter and about a millisecond faster.

Disclaimer: I probably don't know what I'm doing :D

replies(1): >>16728463 #
22. zurkotalto ◴[01 Apr 18 14:08 UTC] No.16728325{3}[source]▶
My ISP peers with cloudflare in Sydney (~40ms), even though there is a CF datacenter in Auckland, New Zealand (~10ms)

I'm in Wellington.

    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=37.9 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=36.9 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=36.7 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=35.9 ms

    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=35.4 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=35.2 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=35.2 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=35.7 ms
23. olfactory ◴[01 Apr 18 14:10 UTC] No.16728335[source]▶
Just curious if that is from a residential internet connection.
24. Reason077 ◴[01 Apr 18 14:14 UTC] No.16728369[source]▶
Here in London, Cloudflare seems a bit faster:

  $ ping 1.1.1.1
  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2.793 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.010 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.789 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=2.963 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.954 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.330 ms
  ^C
  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
  round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.330/2.640/3.010/0.592 ms

  $ ping 8.8.8.8
  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=6.531 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=5.956 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=7.300 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=7.457 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=6.796 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=6.785 ms
  ^C
  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
  round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 5.956/6.804/7.457/0.494 ms
25. r1ch ◴[01 Apr 18 14:14 UTC] No.16728370{3}[source]▶
If you're using a cable or DSL modem, most of that latency is from the signal modulation between you and your ISP.
26. cromulen ◴[01 Apr 18 14:18 UTC] No.16728396[source]▶

  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=19.6 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=19.9 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=19.8 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=19.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=19.8 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=19.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=19.8 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=19.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=19.8 ms

  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=0.390 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=0.565 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=0.472 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=0.556 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=0.560 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=0.573 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=0.359 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=0.575 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=0.543 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=0.548 ms
From Zagreb, Croatia. I guess that new cloudflare POP is paying off.

Edit: formatting

27. ◴[01 Apr 18 14:24 UTC] No.16728424[source]▶
28. ◴[01 Apr 18 14:26 UTC] No.16728435[source]▶
29. sho ◴[01 Apr 18 14:32 UTC] No.16728463{5}[source]▶
mtr aka mytraceroute. Available on homebrew if you're on osx
30. NamTaf ◴[01 Apr 18 14:38 UTC] No.16728495{3}[source]▶
I'm getting ~40-50ms on both on Internode from Brisbane.
replies(2): >>16728732 #>>16729266 #
31. ValentineC ◴[01 Apr 18 14:40 UTC] No.16728499[source]▶
M1 Business:

  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=3.57 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=3.30 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=3.31 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=3.21 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=3.21 ms

  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=3.15 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=3.17 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=2.34 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=2.93 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=3.19 ms
MyRepublic:

  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.88 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.93 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.96 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.85 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=1.85 ms

  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.86 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=1.66 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=1.40 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=1.38 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=1.60 ms
Looks like Google DNS's still a little bit faster.
32. halbritt ◴[01 Apr 18 15:25 UTC] No.16728732{4}[source]▶
Australia, LOL.

You guys are 100ms from anywhere cool.

33. jcims ◴[01 Apr 18 15:39 UTC] No.16728820[source]▶
Using ping to compare the two may introduce a skew based on how the two networks prioritize ICMP.

For example, from my network google is averaging a faster response by ~.5ms

    $ ping 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=28.0 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=19.2 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=19.1 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=19.0 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=20.5 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=19.6 ms
    ^C
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time     5010ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.043/20.950/28.072/3.226 ms
    
    $ ping 8.8.8.8
    PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=19.1 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=20.1 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=20.6 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=21.1 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=21.9 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=19.4 ms
    ^C
    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5008ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.114/20.414/21.922/0.988 ms
However, if i do DNS lookups against a few major domains, google is actually slower by ~2ms

    $ for domain in microsoft.com google.com cloudflare.com facebook.com twitter.com; \
      do cloudflare=$(dig @1.1.1.1 ${domain} | awk '/msec/{print $4}'); \
        google=$(dig @8.8.8.8 ${domain} | awk '/msec/{print $4}');\
        printf "${domain}:\tcloudflare ${cloudflare}ms\tgoogle ${google}ms\n";\
      done
    microsoft.com:	cloudflare 22ms	google 23ms
    google.com:		cloudflare 19ms	google 22ms
    cloudflare.com:	cloudflare 19ms	google 23ms
    facebook.com:	cloudflare 21ms	google 20ms
    twitter.com:	cloudflare 19ms	google 21ms
You'd have to run a bunch of queries to see if there is an actual impact vs. just an outlier (e.g. the first ping response from cloudflare), just wanted to point it out.
34. gpm ◴[01 Apr 18 16:17 UTC] No.16729018[source]▶
Toronto - (ISP: Bell)

    $ ping 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=22.0 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=19.7 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=17.6 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=20.2 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=18.2 ms
    ^C
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4006ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 17.691/19.610/22.080/1.559 ms
    [normal@inspiron ~]$ ping 8.8.8.8
    PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=7.12 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=5.28 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=8.24 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=5.28 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=4.01 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=6.37 ms
    ^C
    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5007ms
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.014/6.053/8.240/1.380 ms
35. telesilla ◴[01 Apr 18 16:26 UTC] No.16729061[source]▶
Rome: about the same for me.

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=56 time=19.145 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=18.927 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=19.258 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=20.000 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=20.428 ms

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=21.351 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=18.606 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=19.451 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=19.084 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=18.989 ms

36. myth_buster ◴[01 Apr 18 16:48 UTC] No.16729189[source]▶
Colorado, US

1.1.1.1 round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 10.984/12.221/14.909/1.239 ms

8.8.8.8 round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.022/12.702/15.102/1.317 ms

37. lugg ◴[01 Apr 18 17:01 UTC] No.16729266{4}[source]▶
What do you get to internode from there? (@192.231.203.132)

I'm halfway up to newcastle getting ~10ms across the board, 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, and 192.231.203.132.

Of course performance on each is a different matter.

1.1.1.1 is giving the best response times @ 8-11ms.

Internode's is giving decent @ 10-14ms

8.8.8.8 is a bit wonky, sometimes I hit a 10ms route once they cache it, but propagation is very slow and most responses are 140-180ms.

replies(1): >>16773590 #
38. guessmyname ◴[01 Apr 18 17:02 UTC] No.16729269[source]▶
Vancouver, BC, Canada

    $ ping -c 10 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=1789.957 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=19.620 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=9.372 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=11.585 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=20.660 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=11.808 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=12.784 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=11.908 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=11.373 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=11.992 ms
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 9.372/191.106/1789.957/532.962 ms

    $ ping -c 10 8.8.8.8
    PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=1308.156 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=17.557 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=13.043 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=16.217 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=15.033 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=15.132 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=60 time=14.157 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=60 time=16.100 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=60 time=15.600 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=60 time=13.837 ms
    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 13.043/144.483/1308.156/387.893 ms
39. manquer ◴[01 Apr 18 17:27 UTC] No.16729393[source]▶
Bangalore, India

  $ ping 1.1.1.1
  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=13.8 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=14.6 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=13.7 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=14.1 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=13.7 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=15.3 ms
  $ ping 8.8.8.8
  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=46 time=43.5 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=46 time=42.3 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=46 time=43.1 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=46 time=42.0 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=46 time=42.4 ms
40. ramshanker ◴[01 Apr 18 17:37 UTC] No.16729428[source]▶
Comparison from EXCITEL ISP - New Delhi.

Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.16299.309] (c) 2017 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

C:\Users\ram>tracert 1.1.1.1

Tracing route to 1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com [1.1.1.1] over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     6 ms    11 ms     5 ms  192.168.1.1
  2     5 ms     5 ms    23 ms  10.4.224.1
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4    15 ms     7 ms    10 ms  103.56.229.1
  5     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  6    45 ms    56 ms    44 ms  115.255.252.225
  7    86 ms    84 ms    87 ms  62.216.144.77
  8   169 ms   173 ms   175 ms  xe-2-0-4.0.cjr01.sin001.flagtel.com [62.216.129.161]
  9   174 ms   174 ms   169 ms  ge-2-0-0.0.pjr01.hkg005.flagtel.com [85.95.25.41]
 10   173 ms   174 ms   170 ms  xe-3-2-2.0.ejr04.seo002.flagtel.com [62.216.130.25]
 11   171 ms   173 ms   170 ms  1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com [1.1.1.1]
Trace complete.

C:\Users\ram>tracert 8.8.8.8

Tracing route to google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8] over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    88 ms   305 ms    98 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    13 ms    98 ms   102 ms  10.4.224.1
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4     *       16 ms     *     10.200.200.1
  5     9 ms     3 ms     8 ms  209.85.172.217
  6    11 ms     5 ms     9 ms  108.170.251.103
  7    40 ms    33 ms    37 ms  209.85.246.164
  8     *       90 ms    89 ms  209.85.241.87
  9    89 ms    86 ms    89 ms  216.239.51.57
 10     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 11     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 12     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 13     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 14     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 15     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 16     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 17     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 18     *        *        *     Request timed out.
 19    87 ms    82 ms    87 ms  google-public-dns-a.google.com [8.8.8.8]
Trace complete.

C:\Users\ram>tracert resolver2.opendns.com

Tracing route to resolver2.opendns.com [208.67.220.220] over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     3 ms     7 ms     8 ms  192.168.1.1
  2    12 ms    11 ms    41 ms  10.4.224.1
  3     *        *        *     Request timed out.
  4    21 ms    21 ms    51 ms  103.56.229.1
  5     *       62 ms    12 ms  115.248.235.150
  6     *      408 ms    65 ms  115.255.252.229
  7    43 ms    49 ms    40 ms  14.142.22.201.static-Mumbai.vsnl.net.in [14.142.22.201]
  8     *       41 ms    57 ms  172.23.78.237
  9    46 ms    32 ms    29 ms  172.19.138.86
 10    73 ms    46 ms    42 ms  115.110.234.50.static.Mumbai.vsnl.net.in [115.110.234.50]
 11    41 ms    64 ms    44 ms  resolver2.opendns.com [208.67.220.220]
Trace complete.

C:\Users\ram>

41. paxys ◴[01 Apr 18 17:57 UTC] No.16729559[source]▶
>5x improvement over Google for me

  ~ ping -c 10 1.1.1.1
  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.15 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.15 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.06 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.04 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.03 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.01 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.02 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.07 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.00 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.848 ms

  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9009ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.848/1.042/1.153/0.086 ms
  
  ~ ping -c 10 8.8.8.8
  PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=6.82 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.72 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=6.39 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=6.73 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=6.55 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=56 time=6.14 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=56 time=6.24 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=56 time=6.22 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=56 time=6.19 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=10 ttl=56 time=6.30 ms

  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9011ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.149/6.433/6.826/0.248 ms
42. tyfon ◴[01 Apr 18 19:46 UTC] No.16730054[source]▶
From Norway (fiber), seems to be a bit faster than google:

$ ping -c 5 1.1.1.1

PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=1.606 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=1.562 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.540 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=1.574 ms

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=1.564 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---

5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 1.540/1.569/1.606/0.022 ms

$ ping -c 5 8.8.8.8

PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=9.068 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=8.923 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=8.974 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=8.916 ms

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=8.931 ms

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---

5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 8.916/8.962/9.068/0.057 ms

43. ttsda ◴[02 Apr 18 00:50 UTC] No.16731459[source]▶
Near Lisbon on residential FTTH:

           ping    dig
           ----------------
  1.1.1.1  3.2     4
  1.0.0.1  2.9     4
  8.8.8.8  36.5    40
  8.8.4.4  36.3    42
These are only averages though, and by testing a bit more with uncached domains I found the first hit will take a lot longer with cloudflare than with google.
44. NamTaf ◴[06 Apr 18 14:45 UTC] No.16773590{5}[source]▶
Sorry for the late response: to Internode (192.231.203.132) I get 36 ms. This is all on (rather terrible) ADSL 2+