Most active commenters
  • chrissnell(3)
  • hartator(3)
  • kentonv(3)
  • nodesocket(3)
  • (3)

←back to thread

1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

(blog.cloudflare.com)
1895 points _l4jh | 93 comments | 01 Apr 18 12:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.114s | source | bottom
1. cleanbrowsing ◴[01 Apr 18 17:09 UTC] No.16729310[source]▶
And look at these ping times:

                                   CloudFlare       Google DNS       Quad9            OpenDNS          
  NewYork                            2 msec           1 msec           2 msec           19 msec          
  Toronto                            2 msec           28 msec          17 msec          27 msec          
  Atlanta                            1 msec           2 msec           1 msec           19 msec          
  Dallas                             1 msec           9 msec           1 msec           7 msec           
  San Francisco                      3 msec           21 msec          15 msec          20 msec          
  London                             1 msec           12 msec          1 msec           14 msec          
  Amsterdam                          2 msec           6 msec           1 msec           6 msec           
  Frankfurt                          1 msec           9 msec           2 msec           9 msec           
  Tokyo                              2 msec           2 msec           81 msec          77 msec          
  Singapore                          2 msec           2 msec           1 msec           189 msec         
  Sydney                             1 msec           130 msec         1 msec           165 msec
Very impressive CloudFlare.
replies(20): >>16729423 #>>16729467 #>>16729545 #>>16729560 #>>16729939 #>>16729952 #>>16730034 #>>16730110 #>>16730198 #>>16730229 #>>16730567 #>>16730893 #>>16731389 #>>16732068 #>>16732273 #>>16732936 #>>16733149 #>>16733462 #>>16733833 #>>16761330 #
2. fipple ◴[01 Apr 18 17:36 UTC] No.16729423[source]▶
How is this possible from a single location? The speed of light in a vacuum is ~200 miles per millisecond.
replies(1): >>16729433 #
3. aftbit ◴[01 Apr 18 17:38 UTC] No.16729433[source]▶
Despite using a single IP, this is not served from a single location. Check out Anycast, wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anycast
replies(1): >>16730497 #
4. chrissnell ◴[01 Apr 18 17:43 UTC] No.16729467[source]▶
Where are you testing from? I'm going to guess: a datacenter. Residential customers won't see anything this fast. I'm in a small town in Kansas, connected by 1 Gbit ATT fiber. I'm getting ~26ms to 1.1.1.1 and ~19ms to my private DNS resolver that I host in a datacenter in Dallas. Google DNS comes in around 19ms.

I suspect that Cloudflare and Google DNS both have POPs in Dallas, which accounts for the similar numbers to my private resolver. My point is, low latencies to datacenter-located resolver clients is great but the advantage is reduced when consumer internet users have to go across their ISP's long private fiber hauls to get to a POP. Once you're at the exchange point, it doesn't really matter which provider you choose. Go with the one with the least censorship, best security, and most privacy. For me, that's the one I run myself.

Side note: I wish AT&T was better about peering outside of their major transit POPs and better about building smaller POPs in regional hubs. For me, that would be Kansas City. Tons of big ISPs and content providers peer in KC but AT&T skips them all and appears to backhaul all Kansas traffic to DFW before doing any peering.

replies(9): >>16729476 #>>16730076 #>>16730117 #>>16730356 #>>16731306 #>>16731480 #>>16732326 #>>16732414 #>>16733837 #
5. hartator ◴[01 Apr 18 17:44 UTC] No.16729476[source]▶
If you are on ethernet, I am able to get 1-2ms pings. On same AT&T Fiber Gigabit. Wifi ruins both bandwidth and latency for me.
replies(3): >>16729519 #>>16729537 #>>16729994 #
6. cthalupa ◴[01 Apr 18 17:52 UTC] No.16729519{3}[source]▶
You should invest in some better wifi gear, it sounds like!

On a Unifi nano hd, with moderate signal, my latency only goes up 1ms.

Getting ~3.5 ms on wifi to 1.1.1.1, ~2.5ms ethernet

replies(3): >>16729656 #>>16730628 #>>16731784 #
7. chrissnell ◴[01 Apr 18 17:55 UTC] No.16729537{3}[source]▶
I'm on Ethernet and fiber all the way. This may have to do more with how AT&T has constructed their fiber in this region. Where do you live?

https://chrissnell.com/hn/traceroute-1.1.1.1.png

replies(2): >>16729662 #>>16730420 #
8. kentonv ◴[01 Apr 18 17:56 UTC] No.16729545[source]▶
Keep in mind that ping time isn't the only factor in DNS lookup speed. For me (sonic.net in Palo Alto):

ping 1.1.1.1: ~22ms

ping 8.8.8.8: ~19ms

dig @1.1.1.1: ~45ms

dig @8.8.8.8: ~70ms

Disclaimer: Eyeballed averages over a few samples. A more rigorous test of DNS lookup times would be cool to see.

Disclosure: I work for Cloudflare, but not on DNS.

replies(3): >>16729749 #>>16729765 #>>16730238 #
9. jpalmer ◴[01 Apr 18 17:58 UTC] No.16729560[source]▶
Using namebench[0], CloudFlare is about the 6th fastest for me. Just ahead of google.

1) Level3

2) DynGuide

3) UltraDNS

4) OpenDNS

5) Quad9

6) CloudFlare

7) Google

[0] https://code.google.com/archive/p/namebench/

10. hartator ◴[01 Apr 18 18:17 UTC] No.16729656{4}[source]▶
That's impressive. My AT&T wifi router caps bandwidth at 300mb/s (instead of 1gbs on ethernet) and add 10-20 ms to latency. And this is standing next to it and using 5ghz.
11. hartator ◴[01 Apr 18 18:18 UTC] No.16729662{4}[source]▶
Austin, TX.
12. joemag ◴[01 Apr 18 18:37 UTC] No.16729749[source]▶
So logging accounts for 25ms ;)
13. mgkimsal ◴[01 Apr 18 18:40 UTC] No.16729765[source]▶
how are you pinging 8.8.8.8?

EDIT: nevermind - mistake on my end!

14. atmosx ◴[01 Apr 18 19:19 UTC] No.16729939[source]▶
I live I Greece, Google’s DNS are 20-30% faster.
15. szatkus ◴[01 Apr 18 19:23 UTC] No.16729952[source]▶
Poznań, Poland

    1.1.1.1: ~17ms (the first one took 179ms, but after that it's pretty fast)
    8.8.8.8: ~16ms
16. nodesocket ◴[01 Apr 18 19:33 UTC] No.16729994{3}[source]▶
AT&T Fiber Gigabit in Nashville TN.

    iMac   ~ 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=0.688 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.814 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.153 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.752 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.755 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.789 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.876 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.869 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.830 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.387 ms
    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.688/0.891/1.387/0.204 ms
Pinging 8.8.8.8 averages 8ms. CloudFlare must have a POP here in Nashville?
replies(3): >>16730334 #>>16731984 #>>16735821 #
17. nodesocket ◴[01 Apr 18 19:42 UTC] No.16730034[source]▶
Note, from Google Compute Engine use 8.8.8.8 as it should always be faster. I'm guessing the 8.8.8.8 service exists in every Google Cloud region. Even better use the default GCE autogenered DNS IP that they configure in /etc/resolv.conf to get instance name resolving magic.
replies(1): >>16730533 #
18. PeterStuer ◴[01 Apr 18 19:53 UTC] No.16730076[source]▶
Small village next to a provincial town in Europe on Cable: getting 11ms avg.
replies(1): >>16732768 #
19. LogicX ◴[01 Apr 18 19:58 UTC] No.16730110[source]▶
Interestingly having routing problems to China for 1.1.1.1 (but not 1.0.0.1): http://ping.pe/1.1.1.1
20. markbnj ◴[01 Apr 18 19:59 UTC] No.16730117[source]▶
Comcast in Northern NJ USA about 45 MI from NYC

  $ 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=56 time=10.8 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=11.3 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=10.7 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=10.9 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=60 time=10.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=11.3 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=11.1 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=10.5 ms
replies(1): >>16730452 #
21. aidenn0 ◴[01 Apr 18 20:14 UTC] No.16730198[source]▶
I assume a cable modem adds at least 8ms of latency, because I get 8ms of latency to my default router, and about 12-15ms to any of those hosts.
22. YetAnotherNick ◴[01 Apr 18 20:19 UTC] No.16730229[source]▶
It looks like you are testing either from centers where cloudflare has servers or exchanging traffic with, which is likely true in a data center given the traffic it transports. What most users want is the ping time from home/office.
23. yborg ◴[01 Apr 18 20:22 UTC] No.16730238[source]▶
I'm guessing Google's resolvers are a little busier than Cloudflare's right now, because pretty much nobody not on HN right now is hitting them. Will be a more interesting comparison in 6 months.
replies(1): >>16730474 #
24. chrissnell ◴[01 Apr 18 20:42 UTC] No.16730334{4}[source]▶
Given that they're a CDN, I would expect them to. I'm jealous that BNA has AT&T peering but Kansas City has minimal/no peering.
25. magoghm ◴[01 Apr 18 20:48 UTC] No.16730356[source]▶
I'm in Mexico:

1.1.1.1 60 ms

8.8.8.8 20 ms

26. thomas88 ◴[01 Apr 18 21:03 UTC] No.16730420{4}[source]▶
How did you get that beautiful traceroute output?
replies(1): >>16730637 #
27. Nition ◴[01 Apr 18 21:09 UTC] No.16730452{3}[source]▶
From a residential connection in New Zealand:

    $ ping 1.1.1.1

    Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60
    Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=60

    $ ping 8.8.8.8

    Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=60
    Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=60
Seems that 1.1.1.1 is even faster than my local ISP's primary DNS:

    $ ping 202.180.64.10

    Pinging 202.180.64.10 with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 202.180.64.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=61
    Reply from 202.180.64.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=61
    Reply from 202.180.64.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=61
    Reply from 202.180.64.10: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=61
replies(3): >>16730673 #>>16731176 #>>16731263 #
28. kentonv ◴[01 Apr 18 21:15 UTC] No.16730474{3}[source]▶
I'd be surprised if increased load has a negative effect on 1.1.1.1's performance.

We run a homogeneous architecture -- that is, every machine in our fleet is capable of handling every type of request. The same machines that currently handle 10% of all HTTP requests on the internet, and handle authoritative DNS for our customers, and serve the DNS F root server, are now handling recursive DNS at 1.1.1.1. These machines are not sitting idle. Moreover, this means that all of these services are drawing from the same pool of resources, which is, obviously, enormous. This service will scale easily to any plausible level of demand.

In fact, in this kind of architecture, a little-used service is actually likely to be penalized in terms of performance because it's spread so thin that it loses cache efficiency (for all kinds of caches -- CPU cache, DNS cache, etc.). More load should actually make it faster, as long as there is capacity, and there is a lot of capacity.

Meanwhile, Cloudflare is rapidly adding new locations -- 31 new locations in March alone, bringing the current total to 151. This not only adds capacity for running the service, but reduces the distance to the closest service location.

In the past I worked at Google. I don't know specifically how their DNS resolver works, but my guess is that it is backed by a small set of dedicated containers scheduled via Borg, since that's how Google does things. To be fair, they have way too many services to run them all on every machine. That said, they're pretty good at scheduling more instances as needed to cover load, so they should be fine too.

In all likelihood, what really makes the difference is the design of the storage layer. But I don't know the storage layer details for either Google's or Cloudflare's resolvers so I won't speculate on that.

replies(1): >>16732501 #
29. tialaramex ◴[01 Apr 18 21:20 UTC] No.16730497{3}[source]▶
Yup, anycast, this is also why:

The "backup" IPv4 address is 1.0.0.1 rather than, say, 1.1.1.2, and why they needed APNIC's help to make this work

In theory you can tell other network providers "Hi, we want you to route this single special address 1.1.1.1 to us" and that would work. But in practice most of them have a rule which says "The smallest routes we care about are a /24" and 1.1.1.1 on its own is a /32. So what gets done about that is you need to route the entire /24 to make this work, and although you can put other services in that /24 if you _really_ want, they will all get routed together, including failover routing and other practices. So, it's usually best to "waste" an entire /24 on a single anycast service. Anycast is not exactly a cheap homebrew thing, so a /24 isn't _that_ much to use up.

30. kentonv ◴[01 Apr 18 21:27 UTC] No.16730533[source]▶
Usually best to use 169.254.169.254, which is the magic "cloud metadata address" that talks directly to the local hypervisor (I think?). That will recurse to public DNS as necessary. https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/internal-dns
replies(1): >>16731333 #
31. mattlondon ◴[01 Apr 18 21:33 UTC] No.16730567[source]▶
From London on a residential ADSL connection:

  8.8.8.8 - ping 7ms dig 14ms
  8.8.4.4 - ping 7ms dig 16ms
  1.1.1.1 - ping 7ms dig 16ms
  1.0.0.1 - ping 6ms dig 15ms
  
  9.9.9.9 - ping 6ms dig 17ms
CF & Google about the same for me. Good to have an alternative in CF though, and certainly a very memorable IP :)
32. fudgy73 ◴[01 Apr 18 21:43 UTC] No.16730628{4}[source]▶
Out of curiosity, what is your complete Unifi / network setup?
replies(1): >>16785420 #
33. tekacs ◴[01 Apr 18 21:45 UTC] No.16730637{5}[source]▶
The GP is using mtr:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_(software)

34. RantyDave ◴[01 Apr 18 21:51 UTC] No.16730673{4}[source]▶
Four! I'm getting 14 from fibre in Wellington. Google are 35 ish.
35. mmsimanga ◴[01 Apr 18 22:27 UTC] No.16730893[source]▶
Cape Town, South Africa, Residential ADSL

    1.1.1.1 ~ 26ms
    8.8.8.8 ~ 42ms
36. lancewiggs ◴[01 Apr 18 23:36 UTC] No.16731176{4}[source]▶
Residential in Auckland, NZ (Vibe, UFB)

64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=0.966 ms

Outstanding.

64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=59 time=25.478 ms

Not so great.

37. spludge ◴[01 Apr 18 23:58 UTC] No.16731263{4}[source]▶
Fastest Bigpipe residential connection available in the middle of Auckland:

  $ ping -c 4 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=56 time=29.0 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=27.7 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=30.5 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=28.6 ms
  
  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 27.731/28.993/30.573/1.028 ms

  $ ping -c 4 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=55 time=27.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=30.7 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=28.5 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=30.6 ms

  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 27.772/29.409/30.710/1.280 ms
I'm starting to feel I should change ISPs...
replies(2): >>16731458 #>>16740129 #
38. sesutton ◴[02 Apr 18 00:07 UTC] No.16731306[source]▶
I think AT&T's fiber modems are using 1.1.1.1. I'm getting < 1ms ping times and according to Cloudflare's website there's no data center close enough to me for that to be possible without violating the speed of light.
replies(1): >>16731739 #
39. jkaplowitz ◴[02 Apr 18 00:16 UTC] No.16731333{3}[source]▶
I agree that's usually best, but one exception is worth noting: if you want only publicly resolvable results, don't use 169.254.169.254. That address adds convenient predictable hostnames for your project's instances under the .internal TLD.

Also, no need to hardcode that address - DHCP will happily serve it up. It also has the hostname metadata.google.internal and the (disfavored for security reasons) bare short hostname metadata.

40. ◴[02 Apr 18 00:32 UTC] No.16731389[source]▶
41. mwilcox ◴[02 Apr 18 00:50 UTC] No.16731458{5}[source]▶
On WiFi in Cambridge NZ

  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=7.65 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=8.53 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=10.2 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=8.04 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=7.92 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=7.85 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.88 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=7.73 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=7.73 ms
42. matthberg ◴[02 Apr 18 00:57 UTC] No.16731480[source]▶
Ping from University of Rochester, over wifi:

Cloudflare:

  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=2 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=2 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=2 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=9 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=2 ms
Google:

  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=12 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=11 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=13 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=45 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=14 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=11 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=34 ms
Quad9:

  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=53 time=10 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=69 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=14 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=58 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=52 ms
One thing I noticed is that when I first pinged 1.1.1.1 I got 14ms, which then quickly dropped to ~3ms consistently:

  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=14 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=14 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=2 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=3 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=1 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=4 ms
replies(6): >>16731753 #>>16731779 #>>16731866 #>>16732407 #>>16732515 #>>16733059 #
43. f2n ◴[02 Apr 18 02:00 UTC] No.16731739{3}[source]▶
what happens if you go to https://1.1.1.1 in a browser? It should have a valid TLS cert and have a big banner that says, among other things, "Introducing 1.1.1.1". If your ISP's CPE or anything else is fucking with traffic to that IP, it wont load/display that
replies(2): >>16731813 #>>16731834 #
44. Tree1993 ◴[02 Apr 18 02:02 UTC] No.16731753{3}[source]▶
Beijing:

  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=52 time=241.529 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=318.034 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=337.291 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=255.748 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=247.765 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=52 time=235.611 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=52 time=239.427 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=52 time=247.911 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=52 time=260.911 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=52 time=281.153 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=52 time=300.363 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=11 ttl=52 time=234.296 ms
replies(4): >>16732175 #>>16732615 #>>16732754 #>>16732978 #
45. shaklee3 ◴[02 Apr 18 02:09 UTC] No.16731779{3}[source]▶
It might be your isp caching the DNS in a local data center after you first request it
replies(1): >>16731825 #
46. snuxoll ◴[02 Apr 18 02:09 UTC] No.16731784{4}[source]▶
Man, wish I could ever get pings this low - the link from my VDSL2 model to the local CenturyLink CO alone is 8-15ms depending on the day.

Sucks that VDSL2 no longer supports fastpath, not that I could use it on an ADSL line due to bonding anyway :/

47. sesutton ◴[02 Apr 18 02:16 UTC] No.16731813{4}[source]▶
I just get connection refused.
replies(2): >>16731926 #>>16731996 #
48. jasongill ◴[02 Apr 18 02:22 UTC] No.16731825{4}[source]▶
There is no DNS involved when you're connecting directly to an IP address
replies(1): >>16731876 #
49. asd ◴[02 Apr 18 02:23 UTC] No.16731834{4}[source]▶
Here's what I'm seeing.

https://i.imgur.com/piisG5D.jpg

50. dannyw ◴[02 Apr 18 02:30 UTC] No.16731866{3}[source]▶
It could be a technique they use to filter out all the junk traffic.
51. rootusrootus ◴[02 Apr 18 02:34 UTC] No.16731876{5}[source]▶
Unless you tell it not to, ping will try a reverse lookup on the IP you are pinging in order to display that to you in the output. It's a good idea to keep that in mind when you ping something, especially if you notice the first ping is abnormally slow.
replies(1): >>16731945 #
52. f2n ◴[02 Apr 18 02:46 UTC] No.16731926{5}[source]▶
Call your ISP and ask them why they're blocking access to some websites. Ask them if there are any other websites they're blocking. Tweet about it. Etc
53. dingo_bat ◴[02 Apr 18 02:52 UTC] No.16731945{6}[source]▶
That reverse lookup time is not counted in the first ping.
replies(1): >>16734357 #
54. mxpxrocks10 ◴[02 Apr 18 03:00 UTC] No.16731984{4}[source]▶
haha, I knew that was you when I read Nashville, nodesocket
55. dubya ◴[02 Apr 18 03:02 UTC] No.16731996{5}[source]▶
I'm getting this on Comcast in Knoxville. https://1.0.0.1 works fine, and https://1.1.1.1 works on my phone if I turn off wifi.
56. mattparlane ◴[02 Apr 18 03:25 UTC] No.16732068[source]▶
Cafe in Chiang Rai, Thailand:

    $ ping -n 1.1.1.1
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 16.696/18.643/22.571/2.056 ms

    $ ping -n 8.8.8.8
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 38.410/45.663/57.684/8.075 ms
57. bgdkbtv ◴[02 Apr 18 03:49 UTC] No.16732175{4}[source]▶
Australia :(

  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=17.580 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=18.025 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=17.780 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=18.231 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=17.906 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=18.447 ms
replies(3): >>16732296 #>>16732349 #>>16732580 #
58. bigiain ◴[02 Apr 18 04:13 UTC] No.16732273[source]▶
Pretty sure that google time for Sydney is an outlier

This is from my residential ADSL2 connection in Sydney:

  [Bigs-MacBook-Pro-2:~] bigiain% 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=59 time=21.257 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=25.831 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=22.231 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=21.498 ms
  ^C
  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
  round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 21.257/22.704/25.831/1.841 ms
  [Bigs-MacBook-Pro-2:~] bigiain% 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=22.481 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=38.814 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=19.923 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=19.911 ms
  ^C
  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
  round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 19.911/25.282/38.814/7.882 ms
And this is from an ec2 instance is ap-southeast-2:

  ubuntu@ip-172-31-xx-xx:~$ 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=55 time=2.24 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=2.27 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=2.30 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=2.26 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=2.31 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=2.25 ms
  ^C
  --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
  6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5007ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.244/2.274/2.310/0.066 ms
  ubuntu@ip-172-31-xx-xx:~$ 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=1.03 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=1.05 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=1.05 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=1.01 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=1.07 ms
  ^C
  --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
  5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4004ms
  rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.015/1.046/1.076/0.035 ms
59. marcus_holmes ◴[02 Apr 18 04:18 UTC] No.16732296{5}[source]▶
Cambodia - crappy office wifi

  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=22.806 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=23.321 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=24.379 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=25.869 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=24.485 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=24.165 ms

  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=23.005 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=22.867 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=24.461 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=23.680 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=35.581 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=21.033 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=41.634 ms
replies(1): >>16732480 #
60. alwillis ◴[02 Apr 18 04:25 UTC] No.16732326[source]▶
I’m getting similar ping times from my Digital Ocean droplet in one of their NYC data centers where my website is hosted:

    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes

    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
    round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 1.335/1.431/1.517/0.053 ms
61. brod ◴[02 Apr 18 04:31 UTC] No.16732349{5}[source]▶
Melbourne, Australia :)

   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=5.044 ms
   64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=6.447 ms
   64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=6.371 ms
   64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=60 time=6.308 ms
   64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=60 time=7.317 ms
   64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=60 time=5.989 ms
replies(1): >>16733782 #
62. tayo42 ◴[02 Apr 18 04:46 UTC] No.16732407{3}[source]▶
Something interesting I saw pointed out on the reddit thread about this is the ttl between 1.1.1.1 and 8.8.8.8 is the ttl is way different.

Your pings also have the same thing showing up 128 vs 53. I tried on my laptop and get something simmilar. traceroute to 1.1.1.1 is 1 hop which is wrong. 1.0.0.1 shows a few hops.

`dig google.com @1.1.1.1` doesn't work for me.

63. deathanatos ◴[02 Apr 18 04:48 UTC] No.16732414[source]▶
> Residential customers won't see anything this fast.

The standard Comcast black-box router/modem I have has a mean ping of ~9ms, and a min of ~3ms, so yeah, I'd have to agree.

(I get ~28ms to 1.1.1.1.)

64. kukkukb ◴[02 Apr 18 05:08 UTC] No.16732480{6}[source]▶
Johannesburg, South Africa. 100mb/s home fibre:

  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=58 time=1.36 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=1.32 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=1.34 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=1.38 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=1.37 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=1.33 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=1.38 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=56 time=1.35 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=56 time=1.36 ms
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=56 time=1.35 ms
65. lugg ◴[02 Apr 18 05:20 UTC] No.16732501{4}[source]▶
> In fact, in this kind of architecture, a little-used service is actually likely to be penalized in terms of performance because it's spread so thin that it loses cache efficiency

This is exactly what I'm seeing with the small amount of testing I'm doing against google to compare vs cloudflare.

Sometimes google will respond in 30ms (cache hit), more often than not it has to do at least a partial lookup (160ms), and sometimes even go further to (400ms.)

The worst I'm encountering on 1.1.1.1 is around 200ms for a cache miss.

Basically, what it looks like is that google is load balancing my queries and I'm getting poor performance because of it - I'm guessing they simply need to kill some of their capacity to see increased cache hits.

Anecdotally I'm at least seeing better performance out of 1.1.1.1 than my ISP's (internode) which has consistently done better than 8.8.8.8 in the past.

Also anecdotally, my short 1-2 month trial of using systemd-resolved is now coming to a failed conclusion, I suspect I'll be going back to my pdnsd setup because it just works better.

66. alea12 ◴[02 Apr 18 05:25 UTC] No.16732515{3}[source]▶
From Tokyo, Japan:

$ 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=58 time=111.781 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=102.982 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=102.206 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=110.135 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=110.085 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=58 time=6.886 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=5.475 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=5.674 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=5.557 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=7.066 ms

$ ping 9.9.9.9 PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=0 ttl=58 time=5.880 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=5.534 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=5.251 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=5.194 ms 64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=5.698 ms

67. predakanga ◴[02 Apr 18 05:45 UTC] No.16732580{5}[source]▶
Interesting that they're announcing 1.1.1.1 in Australia, while their CDN traffic still goes via Hong Kong
replies(1): >>16733005 #
68. oldsharp ◴[02 Apr 18 05:54 UTC] No.16732615{4}[source]▶
Hangzhou:

    $ ping 1.1.1.1
    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 3
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 4
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 5
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 6
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 7
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 8
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 9
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 10

    $ ping 1.0.0.1
    PING 1.0.0.1 (1.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=50 time=167.359 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=165.791 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=165.846 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=166.755 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=166.694 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=166.088 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=166.460 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=50 time=166.668 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=50 time=166.753 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=50 time=165.670 ms
    64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=166.816 ms
Seem not China friendly :-(
69. anielsen ◴[02 Apr 18 06:34 UTC] No.16732754{4}[source]▶
Copenhagen:

  PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=55 time=14.053 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=12.715 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=13.615 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=14.018 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=12.261 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=11.428 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 time=11.950 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=55 time=13.034 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=55 time=13.679 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=55 time=12.415 ms
  64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=10 ttl=55 time=12.088 ms
replies(2): >>16735753 #>>16738765 #
70. robarr ◴[02 Apr 18 06:38 UTC] No.16732768{3}[source]▶
from Lima, Peru

PING 1.0.0.1: 64 data bytes

--- 1.0.0.1 ping statistics ---

14 packets transmitted, 14 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 120.784/126.222/128.433/2.036 ms

1.1.1.1 timed out, must be blocked by my iso.

71. kalleboo ◴[02 Apr 18 07:26 UTC] No.16732936[source]▶
I'm in a city in southern Japan (so most of my traffic needs to go to Tokyo first), on a gigabit fiber connection.

    --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 30.507/32.155/36.020/1.419 ms

    --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
    rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 19.618/21.572/23.009/0.991 ms
The traceroutes are inconclusive but they kind of look like Google has a POP in Fukuoka and CloudFlare are only in Tokyo.

edit: Namebench was broken for me, but running GRC's DNS Benchmark my ISP's own resolver is the fastest, then comes Google 8.8.8.8, then Level3 4.2.2.[123], then OpenDNS, then NTT, and then finally 1.1.1.1.

72. karthikkolli ◴[02 Apr 18 07:41 UTC] No.16732978{4}[source]▶
PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=61 time=15.860 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=15.799 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=15.616 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=15.769 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=15.431 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=16.459 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=15.860 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=15.930 ms
73. djd20 ◴[02 Apr 18 07:49 UTC] No.16733005{6}[source]▶
Dubai: PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=48.728 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=48.450 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=47.266 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=45.320 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=46.470 ms
74. 6t6t6t6 ◴[02 Apr 18 08:02 UTC] No.16733059{3}[source]▶
Tokyo, domestic 2Gbps FO but connected through Wifi:

    PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=5.531 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=4.420 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=5.450 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=5.438 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=4.231 ms
    64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=5.933 ms



    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=6.440 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=4.574 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=4.684 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=4.992 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=5.942 ms
    64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=5.955 ms
75. rsync ◴[02 Apr 18 08:35 UTC] No.16733149[source]▶
"And look at these ping times ..."

I would be interested to hear from google (8.8.8.8) how much ping traffic that address gets ...

I know that I will quickly ping 8.8.8.8 as a very quick and dirty test of network up ... its just faster to type than any other address I could test with.

76. deadlocked ◴[02 Apr 18 10:16 UTC] No.16733462[source]▶
ICMP round-trip times don't necessarily prove anything - you need to be examing DNS resolution times.

Lots of network hardware (i.e., routers, firewalls if they're not outright blocking) de-prioritise ICMP (and other types of network control/testing traffic) and the likelihood is that Google (and other free DNS providers) are throttling the number of ICMP replies that they send.

They're not providing an ICMP reply service, they're providing a DNS service. I'd a situation during the week where I'd to tell one of our engineers to stop tracking 8.8.8.8 as an indicator of network availability for this reason.

77. bgdkbtv ◴[02 Apr 18 11:50 UTC] No.16733782{6}[source]▶
Woah! That's pretty good. Mine was on Belong NBN in Brisbane.
78. MaysonL ◴[02 Apr 18 12:04 UTC] No.16733833[source]▶
Pasadena, CA

1.1.1.1 continually timed out.

1.0.0.1 succeeded

18 packets transmitted, 18 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 10.178/11.128/12.585/0.576 ms

79. luochen1990 ◴[02 Apr 18 12:05 UTC] No.16733837[source]▶
HangZhou:

  Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data:
  Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
  Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
  Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
  Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=128

  Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data:
  Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=37
  Request timed out.
  Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=37
  Request timed out.

  Pinging 1.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
  Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=50
  Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=144ms TTL=50
  Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=50
  Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=140ms TTL=50
80. rootusrootus ◴[02 Apr 18 13:41 UTC] No.16734357{7}[source]▶
Perhaps that depends on operating system. In the 30 years I have been using ping on Linux, the reverse lookup time is absolutely included in the first ping time.
replies(1): >>16736195 #
81. MarcysVonEylau ◴[02 Apr 18 16:03 UTC] No.16735753{5}[source]▶
Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 89.228.6.1: Destination net unreachable. Reply from 89.228.6.1: Destination net unreachable. Reply from 89.228.6.1: Destination net unreachable. Reply from 89.228.6.1: Destination net unreachable.

Any idea why my ISP redirects this IP?

replies(1): >>16738979 #
82. dragonwriter ◴[02 Apr 18 16:09 UTC] No.16735821{4}[source]▶
That's probably because AT&T is using 1.1.1.1 for something internal and breaking the public internet for it's users: you get a really fast ping on 1.1.1.1, but it's not the 1.1.1.1 you are trying to reach.
replies(2): >>16737376 #>>16772158 #
83. dingo_bat ◴[02 Apr 18 16:40 UTC] No.16736195{8}[source]▶
If true, that's a bug.

Edit: Assuming this is the right file: https://github.com/iputils/iputils/blob/master/ping.c, I don't see the reverse lookup code anywhere. But then I'm not the most proficient in reading linux code.

84. nodesocket ◴[02 Apr 18 18:12 UTC] No.16737376{5}[source]▶
Is this just speculation or can anybody confirm?

    traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
     1  1dot1dot1dot1.cloudflare-dns.com (1.1.1.1)  1.117 ms  0.710 ms  0.727 ms
replies(1): >>16741212 #
85. ◴[02 Apr 18 20:08 UTC] No.16738765{5}[source]▶
86. rashomon ◴[02 Apr 18 20:29 UTC] No.16738979{6}[source]▶
Maybe an advertisement re-direct for NXDOMAINS?
87. michaelmurfy ◴[02 Apr 18 22:41 UTC] No.16740129{5}[source]▶
BigPipe, Spark, Skinny and Vodafone don't believe in peering and thus don't peer with Cloudflare at APE. If you wanted the best performance then 2degrees, Orcon, Voyager or Slingshot are the best for this since they peer.
replies(1): >>16752297 #
88. ◴[03 Apr 18 01:41 UTC] No.16741212{6}[source]▶
89. gunkaaa ◴[04 Apr 18 05:47 UTC] No.16752297{6}[source]▶
Vodafone have come to the party and are on AKL-IX now.
90. Akhi1 ◴[05 Apr 18 02:36 UTC] No.16761330[source]▶
From Hyderabad, India

Cloudflare:

Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=56

Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=56

Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=56

Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=56

Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=56

GoogleDNS:

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=55

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=55

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=55

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=55

Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=55

replies(1): >>16772764 #
91. _nickwhite ◴[06 Apr 18 10:10 UTC] No.16772158{5}[source]▶
Seems AT&T uses 1.1.1.1 inside of their modems. Oops!

Using 1.0.0.1 works.

92. prab97 ◴[06 Apr 18 12:47 UTC] No.16772764[source]▶
From Hyderabad, another ISP

Pinging 1.1.1.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 1.1.1.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 45ms, Average = 45ms

Pinging 1.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54 Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54 Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54 Reply from 1.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 1.0.0.1: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 46ms, Average = 46ms

Pinging 8.8.4.4 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.4.4: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.4.4: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.4.4: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.4.4: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 8.8.4.4: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 29ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 29ms

Pinging 8.8.8.8 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=56

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 21ms, Maximum = 21ms, Average = 21ms

Pinging 208.67.220.220 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 208.67.220.220: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.220.220: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.220.220: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.220.220: bytes=32 time=50ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 208.67.220.220: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 45ms, Maximum = 50ms, Average = 46ms

Pinging 208.67.222.222 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=54 Reply from 208.67.222.222: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=54

Ping statistics for 208.67.222.222: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 61ms, Maximum = 61ms, Average = 61ms

93. cthalupa ◴[08 Apr 18 09:53 UTC] No.16785420{5}[source]▶
GW/Firewall: USG-XG Switches: 2x US-16-XG, 1x US-48, 2x US-8 APs: 2x Nano HD, 2x AC Pro