Setting DNS to be done by router or assign DNS to clients for direct DNS....

[shoman94]

Is there a difference? Does setting it at the client remove a step of processing?

 

[Tech9]

No difference.

 

[eibgrad]

There is a difference, if by setting at the client, you mean setting the client w/ public DNS servers as opposed to the router's DNS proxy (DNSMasq). In the former case, you don't get any of the benefits of that local proxy, including local name resolution, caching, ad-blocking (if implemented), DoT/DoH (if implemented), etc.

 

[Tech9]

The biggest difference in "processing" is when you change your mind and you want different DNS. When you do the manual "processing" few times for multiple clients, you give up and use the router, with added caching, filtering and/or encrypting benefits @eibgrad is talking about.

 

[shoman94]

The biggest difference in "processing" is when you change your mind and you want different DNS. When you do the manual "processing" few times for multiple clients, you give up and use the router, with added caching, filtering and/or encrypting benefits @eibgrad is talking about.

I'm more talking about this setting..... Based on what that says, the router would assign the DNS to the client.

 

[Tech9]

Use it only if you need different DNS for specific clients. The processing speed is the same, if that's your concern.

 

[shoman94]

 

[Tech9]

This is BS. Just set your preferred DNS provider in WAN section, if you don't want to use your ISP DNS. It is in your control.

 

[ColinTaylor]

That "recommendation" from GRC is simply wrong. It is hopelessly out of date (just like Steve Gibson himself).

 

[Tech9]

It is hopeless out of date

It says Copyright (c) 2020 at the bottom of the page. What's missing is "This site is best viewed by Netscape Navigator".

 

[RMerlin]

That "recommendation" from GRC is simply wrong. It is hopelessly out of date (just like Steve Gibson himself).

Wouldn't be the first time that this site had it completely wrong, repeating advice that might have been accurate in 2005 rather than 2021.

 

[RMerlin]

Here's a counterpoint in favor of using your router's resolver: it will ensure that you locally cache the entries that are more frequently visited by YOU. And local cached entries on your network will always be faster than caching done by your ISP where you would need to leave your LAN, which can mean a typical 10-15 ms latency on queries this way (if you wanted to split hair about performance).

 

[shoman94]

Here's a counterpoint in favor of using your router's resolver: it will ensure that you locally cache the entries that are more frequently visited by YOU. And local cached entries on your network will always be faster than caching done by your ISP where you would need to leave your LAN, which can mean a typical 10-15 ms latency on queries this way (if you wanted to split hair about performance).

That's what I was looking for, thanks.