According to this page:
- you can already test this right now
- you can provide your own server
And some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_over_HTTPS
According to this page:
- you can already test this right now
- you can provide your own server
And some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_over_HTTPS
Nobody will do this except for maybe 5 individuals and a few dozen cooperations simply because there are no other public DoH servers around.
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns-over... https://ripe76.ripe.net/on-site/technical-information/dns-ov...
The DNScrypt project has a longer list here:
https://download.dnscrypt.info/resolvers-list/v2/public-reso...
Keep in mind that this is currently all pretty much experimental.
Home/small business router vendors already include DNS resolvers on the boxes they sell which work to automatically provide hostnames for addresses that they've served up with DHCP.
What is THE problem, is configuring the browser. No one is going to reconfigure their browser after each connection to a different network. There's a reason why we moved from static configuration towards DHCP, which can configure network-specific settings. DNS is a network-specific setting, and Mozilla is breaking it.
Fixed desktops maybe, but a laptop or phone?
I always see this repeated as a mantra, but never it's rationale. No company is going to advertise their internal infrastructure needlessly. There's no upside in the world knowing that your _kdc._tcp.company.com is 192.168.10.20; but there are downsides.
> DoH could be used on the default DNS servers too, there is value of encrypted DNS on LAN as well.
Sure, but hardcoding or statically-configuring the value is not the way. LANs need to have their DHCP tags respected. If one of them is "use this URL for DoH-server", that's fine.
How do I RUN my own server? A few minutes of Googling hasn't revealed any DNS-over-HTTPS server that appears production-ready.
Another advantage of using standard UDP-based DNS over a UDP-based VPN is that it can reorder packets in flight, so it should have lower latency than anything TCP-based.
I hope I'm wrong about that, but I'd like to prepare a little bit in case I'm right.
QUIC will let us have it both ways (and as QUIC has an HTTP definition, its basically a free upgrade for DoH).