HN Explorer

8 comments

[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 25.8 ms ] thread
londons_explore
I think code to implement http/1.1 in whatever software stack they use would have been shorter than the blog post...
dev_l1x_be
I never understood DOH over DOT. It makes sense if you want to hide DNS lookups so that people cannot block the DNS queries to ad and other scam networks.
1vuio0pswjnm7
Anyone who has their DNS filtered, e.g., by ISPs that redirect DNS port numbers, like hotels, can use DoH to work around the problem
5d41402abc4b
HTTP/1.1 is still heavily used in embedded system.
temp0826
NextDNS has a DOH3 (as in, http/3) endpoint but afaict it doesn't seem to always use http/3.
crimsonnoodle58
Mikrotik DoH user here. While I don't use Quad9, I do use 1.1.1.1. I hope they don't follow suit before Mikrotik get a chance to add HTTP/2 support (if ever).
hypeatei
> However, we are reaching the end of life for the libraries and code that support HTTP/1.1

What libraries are ending support for HTTP/1.1? That seems like an extremely bad move and somewhat contrived.

1vuio0pswjnm7
RFC 8484:

"5.2. HTTP/2

HTTP/2 [RFC7540] is the minimum RECOMMENDED version of HTTP for use with DoH."

One paper I read some years ago reported DoH is faster than DoT but for multiple queries in single TCP connection outside the browser I find that DoT is faster

I use a local forward proxy for queries with HTTP/2. (Using libnghttp2 is another alternative). In own case (YMMV) HTTP/2 is not signifcantly faster than using HTTP/1.1 pipelining

For me, streaming TCP queries with DoT blows DoH away