I tried this and it does seem to make things a little snappier.
Depending on what you have now, it can speed up DNS resolution a lot.
Does not change your bandwidth speed, of course.
But the faster you get the DNS query back, the faster you are routed to that address.
Some web pages toss dozens of DNSs at you when you load the page, along with the actual content. Ads, etc.. And they all have to be resolved to the actual address.
It takes a fair amount of time to run, 20-30 minutes for me.
I added the two recommended DNS addys to my Windows setup, and I can tell the difference.
Kim Komando DNS tip.
Kitty tested, kitty approved.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I've been using Domain Name Speed Benchmark for years.

https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

A unique, comprehensive, accurate & free Windows (and Linux/Wine) utility to determine the exact performance of local and remote DNS nameservers . . .
“You can't optimize it until you can measure it”

Now you CAN measure it!

---

...

I've been using Domain Name Speed Benchmark for years.

https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

A unique, comprehensive, accurate & free Windows (and Linux/Wine) utility to determine the exact performance of local and remote DNS nameservers . . .
“You can't optimize it until you can measure it”

Now you CAN measure it!

Looks like that gives much more information.
The one KK uses is very basic. It runs the tests, does the math, and reports what to use.
No pretty graphs.
And it's only 5MB for Windows.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

DNS Benchmark has a smaller foot print.

The best way to familiarize yourself with the DNS Benchmark's operation is to download a copy to your computer. Note that it's not very large (only 163 KB) so it won't take long. And also note that there's nothing to “install” — you just run the executable file. So fire it up and poke around at its many features.

What works best for you is what works best for you.

I measure about once a month and set the three fastest pairs.

---

...

DNS Benchmark has a smaller foot print.

The best way to familiarize yourself with the DNS Benchmark's operation is to download a copy to your computer. Note that it's not very large (only 163 KB) so it won't take long. And also note that there's nothing to “install” — you just run the executable file. So fire it up and poke around at its many features.

What works best for you is what works best for you.

I measure about once a month and set the three fastest pairs.

Oh, nom nom nom. That may be even better than the one KK referenced.
How do you set 3 pairs of addresses? I can only set 1 in Local Connections.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Look under your ‘Network Connections’, in my case, open my NIC card properties, click on ‘Internet Protocal Version 4 (TCP/IPv4),
click on ‘Properties’,
click on ‘Advanced’, in ‘Advanced TCP/IP Settings’
click on ‘DNS’ tab,
click on ‘Add…’
and add your addresses.

I added my three fastest DNS pairs.
63.251.161.33
63.251.161.1
8.8.4.4
8.8.8.8
206.253.194.65
206.253.194.97

In addition to these tweaks I use SG TCP Optimizer to fine tune my connection.

https://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php

TCP Optimizer 4 (latest stable release that works with Windows XP, 7, 8, 8.1, 10, 2012 Server, etc.)
Details: The TCP Optimizer is a free, easy Windows program that provides an intuitive interface for tuning and optimizing your Internet connection. There is no installation required, just download and run as administrator

---

...

And for starters, 192.168.1.1 apparently leads nowhere.

And for starters, 192.168.1.1 apparently leads nowhere.

That's a "private" address, and may, or may not be defined on your local router.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

" . "

As previously mentioned here and also part of the current discussion as well.

Ah, rob, ever heard about the dirty web (for starters)?

My words here for perhaps yours, for a similar reason.

That's the reason why I made it just a punctuation mark, because for one thing it could be a simple comment, or reply, when it comes to, or against an experienced user here, namely j_mercer.

By the way, or in fact, I did not follow up on this discussion in all its details, but rather that I am not unfamiliar with this little thing either.

Again, my experience versus perhaps yours and in the end you perhaps know who is telling the truth, or perhaps is supposed to be the winner.

This perhaps could not be stated any better.

All 192.168.xxx.xxx addresses are defined as "private, within a confined network", and as such are not directly accessible the "other side" of the defining router. The same applies to the 10.xxx.xxx.xxx addresses.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

And for starters, 192.168.1.1 apparently leads nowhere.

From http://192168-1-1.com/

192.168.1.1 is IP address used by several router manufactureres as default address for the router itself. This address is mostly used by Linksys routers as well open-source linux-based firmwares that are compatible with Linlsys routers. As a consequence 192.168.1.1 is likely to be set as default gateway on computers connected to the router. http://192.168.1.1 also usually contains web-interface that controls router's configuration. If you are unable to access this address it's likely that you have some kind of network configuration problem.

See for your self where it goes on your network.
http://192.168.1.1

---

...

Sorry about the language being used.

But here the second link in question apparently goes nowhere when clicking on it.

I better should read the provided answers.

But when checking, the address is not being used here by the network inteface, so when rather pinging the address, or alternatively, using the tracert command,
then it becomes what I previously meant to say, namely that for now it goes nowhere.

Rather it apparently starts with 10.165.XXX.XXX, where the two last perhaps does not need to be a secret, but rather could be a local address.

But from a practical point of view, it rather becomes a choice of which such address, as well as possible port, or ports to use, because both this web page and also
YouTube could be offering a continuous feed, while other parts of the system could be more or less inaccessible.

BTW, thanks for the download suggestion, which I missed because doing a little too much.

And guess who started this thread?

Apologies for that, since I missed it at the top (or perhaps bottom).