WhizComms, new Fibre Broadband provider

[BBCWatcher]

I see so its more likely that they configured the ONR in bridge rather than actually giving me an ONT.

A bridged ONR and ONT function the same way for these purposes.

humm i'll need to pull another cable if wan port aggregation is needed as the router is a couple metres away from the DB box. but that means its still max 2Gbps. they are really misrepresenting their product imo

Or don't. If for example you've got a wired device located near the ONR then you could plug that into the second (or third) port, and it'll get its own 1.0 Gb/s that could potentially drive total utilization across the fibre above 1.0 Gb/s. Which still might not matter, but if it makes you feel better...

1. FYI, WAN Aggregation does not work since none of local ISP's ONT/ONR support LACP-IEEE 802.3ad.

Darn.

2. What will work is Dual WAN Load Balancing. But then the Asus router needs to be configured in router mode and you have to live with Double NAT, which may or may not cause issues depending on the use cases.
https://www.asus.com/sg/support/faq/1050116/

Yeah, not really worth it.

 

[Lss]

A bridged ONR and ONT function the same way for these purposes.

Or don't. If for example you've got a wired device located near the ONR then you could plug that into the second (or third) port, and it'll get its own 1.0 Gb/s that could potentially drive total utilization across the fibre above 1.0 Gb/s. Which still might not matter, but if it makes you feel better...

Darn.

Yeah, not really worth it.

i dont have any wired device near the ONT . have a couple of IOT stuff so typically have about 20 to 30 wireless devices and nothing is wired.

i repositioned the router so its near the centre of house which has worked very well in providing full coverage.

 

[Lss]

As mentioned, WAN Aggregation will not work. Dual WAN Load balancing will work. But you still need to pull another cable to do that and you will have to live with Double NAT.

WC 2.5Gbps is so-called "aggregated 2.5Gbps plan".

They mention the following in the WC webpages.

1) https://whizcomms.com.sg/2-5gbps-speed-boost-request/
Note: 2.5Gbps Broadband has a maximum bandwidth of 2.5Gbps, with each device connection achieving up to 1Gbps.

2) https://whizcomms.com.sg/fibreplus-2-5gbps/
Frequently Asked Questions

What is 2.5Gbps Broadband?
2.5Gbps Broadband is our lowest priced broadband plan. For most residential users, 2.5Gbps is more than sufficient for every day online activities such as music/video streaming, surfing the web, working and even gaming to some extent.

You will enjoy a maximum total bandwidth of 2.5Gbps with each device connection going up to 1Gbps.

wow i even asked if i can upgrade and get full speed with what i have currently and they said yes. i submitted recontract request already.

 

[BBCWatcher]

i dont have any wired device near the ONT . have a couple of IOT stuff so typically have about 20 to 30 wireless devices and nothing is wired.
i repositioned the router so its near the centre of house which has worked very well in providing full coverage.

That works. Your wireless router (Asus TUF AX4200) can get a 1.0 Gb/s connection from the WhizComms ONR, then the router and your wireless devices will manage whatever they can manage. Whenever WhizComms bumps up your fibre line speed you might need to restart your ONR and/or wireless router.

I suggest capping your Asus TUF AX4200 at 80 MHz wide channels. If you're using a 160 MHz wide channel it'll have less range/coverage, and it won't do you much good since your upstream connection is 1.0 Gb/s notional. An 80 MHz wide channel with a typical 2x2 device can max out at 1.2 Gb/s notional. We only have 2 channels in the 5 GHz band in Singapore that are 160 MHz wide, and both straddle DFS frequencies which can make them unstable. I think it's better to choose an 80 MHz wide channel since 2 of them are non-DFS plus there are 4 more within DFS spectrum. That gives your router a lot more to work with.

I even prefer 40 MHz wide channels in my area given how crowded the 5 GHz band is around me. I don't mind trading raw speed for improved stability and better range/coverage. But YMMV.

Also check to make sure you're not "double NATing." Do you know how to check that?

 

[Lss]

That works. Your wireless router (Asus TUF AX4200) can get a 1.0 Gb/s connection from the WhizComms ONR, then the router and your wireless devices will manage whatever they can manage. Whenever WhizComms bumps up your fibre line speed you might need to restart your ONR and/or wireless router.

I suggest capping your Asus TUF AX4200 at 80 MHz wide channels. If you're using a 160 MHz wide channel it'll have less range/coverage, and it won't do you much good since your upstream connection is 1.0 Gb/s notional. An 80 MHz wide channel with a typical 2x2 device can max out at 1.2 Gb/s notional. We only have 2 channels in the 5 GHz band in Singapore that are 160 MHz wide, and both straddle DFS frequencies which can make them unstable. I think it's better to choose an 80 MHz wide channel since 2 of them are non-DFS plus there are 4 more within DFS spectrum. That gives your router a lot more to work with.

I even prefer 40 MHz wide channels in my area given how crowded the 5 GHz band is around me. I don't mind trading raw speed for improved stability and better range/coverage. But YMMV.

Also check to make sure you're not "double NATing." Do you know how to check that?

ok i'll try that.

i dont. how do i check for double NAT?

 

[jinsatkilife]

That works. Your wireless router (Asus TUF AX4200) can get a 1.0 Gb/s connection from the WhizComms ONR, then the router and your wireless devices will manage whatever they can manage. Whenever WhizComms bumps up your fibre line speed you might need to restart your ONR and/or wireless router.

I suggest capping your Asus TUF AX4200 at 80 MHz wide channels. If you're using a 160 MHz wide channel it'll have less range/coverage, and it won't do you much good since your upstream connection is 1.0 Gb/s notional. An 80 MHz wide channel with a typical 2x2 device can max out at 1.2 Gb/s notional. We only have 2 channels in the 5 GHz band in Singapore that are 160 MHz wide, and both straddle DFS frequencies which can make them unstable. I think it's better to choose an 80 MHz wide channel since 2 of them are non-DFS plus there are 4 more within DFS spectrum. That gives your router a lot more to work with.

I even prefer 40 MHz wide channels in my area given how crowded the 5 GHz band is around me. I don't mind trading raw speed for improved stability and better range/coverage. But YMMV.

Also check to make sure you're not "double NATing." Do you know how to check that?

have you noticed any deprioritization as mentioned by some users?

would it show up in terms of latency or how important is this factor to consider?

with their recent bump in price to $24 with installation fee, might as well go for starhub 5gbps for new user

 

[BBCWatcher]

ok i'll try that.
i dont. how do i check for double NAT?

Well, one way is to log onto your Asus TUF-AX4200 wireless router and check in the WAN section what automatic/dynamic IPv4 address it's getting from the WhizComms ONR. If it's getting an IPv4 address beginning with 10 (example: 10.8.1.5) or an IPv4 address beginning with 192.168 (example: 192.168.81.50) then your ONR is not bridged. And in that case you may get better results if you disable routing functions in your TUF-AX4200 and configure it as a wireless access point (WAP) only.

Another way is to run a "traceroute" (or "tracert" on Windows) and see what you get. For example, if you're on Windows and run this command from a command line window:

tracert 8.8.8.8

Then you should see output that looks something like this:

Tracing route to dns.google [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     6 ms     6 ms     6 ms  10.6.12.100
  2     7 ms     7 ms     8 ms  45.114.9.108
  3    12 ms     6 ms     6 ms  103.67.121.186
  4    11 ms    16 ms     8 ms  103.67.121.18
[....]

If line #2 is an address that begins with 10 or 192.168 then you're double NAT'ed.

have you noticed any deprioritization as mentioned by some users?

You mean for something like torrents? I don't send/receive that sort of traffic routinely. It's purely an IPv4 network service, but it seems to be a reliable one.

would it show up in terms of latency or how important is this factor to consider?
with their recent bump in price to $24 with installation fee, might as well go for starhub 5gbps for new user

I guess it depends which initial fees, if any, StarHub charges.

 

[Lss]

Well, one way is to log onto your Asus TUF-AX4200 wireless router and check in the WAN section what automatic/dynamic IPv4 address it's getting from the WhizComms ONR. If it's getting an IPv4 address beginning with 10 (example: 10.8.1.5) or an IPv4 address beginning with 192.168 (example: 192.168.81.50) then your ONR is not bridged. And in that case you may get better results if you disable routing functions in your TUF-AX4200 and configure it as a wireless access point (WAP) only.

Another way is to run a "traceroute" (or "tracert" on Windows) and see what you get. For example, if you're on Windows and run this command from a command line window:

tracert 8.8.8.8

Then you should see output that looks something like this:

Tracing route to dns.google [8.8.8.8]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1     6 ms     6 ms     6 ms  10.6.12.100
  2     7 ms     7 ms     8 ms  45.114.9.108
  3    12 ms     6 ms     6 ms  103.67.121.186
  4    11 ms    16 ms     8 ms  103.67.121.18
[....]

If line #2 is an address that begins with 10 or 192.168 then you're double NAT'ed.

My WAN IP starts with 156. Guess means it's fine?

 

[BBCWatcher]

My WAN IP starts with 156. Guess means it's fine?

Yes, it's probably 156.246.x.y or 156.249.x.y. That looks good. You can confirm this finding with a traceroute from a laptop or desktop if you'd like.

 

[orhpeesai]

Does anybody's whizcomm connection sometimes just drop intermittently, and then the ping to 1.1.1.1 goes very high (1000+ ms)? Normally the ping to 1.1.1.1 should be around 3-4 ms

 

[BBCWatcher]

Does anybody's whizcomm connection sometimes just drop intermittently, and then the ping to 1.1.1.1 goes very high (1000+ ms)? Normally the ping to 1.1.1.1 should be around 3-4 ms

using wireless or ethernet connection?

That's a very good question. You should first rule out Wi-Fi issues before jumping to conclusions.

That said, at this moment I ran some basic tests over a WhizComms line, and I see that pings to 1.1.1.1 are running about 36 to 37 ms. That's from wired equipment directly connected to the ONR. Pings to 9.9.9.9 from the same equipment are running about 1 to 2 ms, and pings to 8.8.8.8 are about 2 ms.

It's not uncommon for public DNS servers to vary in how quickly they respond — and for their responsiveness to vary over time. I like to use two different DNS servers (from two different DNS server providers) for a little more robustness, but clients will vary in how they use them and how quickly they switch to an alternate DNS server if/when need be. Another possible approach is to set up your own DNS server which is then smart enough to figure out which "outside" DNS server to use, and when. But the downside is that if your DNS server falls over everybody on your LAN that attempts to use it is affected. A hybrid approach is possible, too: clients use your DNS server as primary and some external one (that your own DNS server doesn't use) as secondary.

....And then there are confidentiality, malware blocking, and "family friendly" considerations that may apply.

 

[7urfer]

whizcomms just came to my house today to activate 2.5gbps plan
on spot test the ONR to the guy laptop showing 900+ down n up on speedtest.net
but after the guy left, i just try plug Lan cable to my router to speedtest around 300+ down n up due to my old asus router, didnt think much since is old router

after which i unplug from router and plug Lan cable from ONR to my laptop for speedtest which only reflect 100+ down and up. did this multiple time but still shows same result.
Not sure if others face same situation as me. did the test with ONR to laptop connecting, no other device connected.

 

[xiaofan]

That's a very good question. You should first rule out Wi-Fi issues before jumping to conclusions.

That said, at this moment I ran some basic tests over a WhizComms line, and I see that pings to 1.1.1.1 are running about 36 to 37 ms. That's from wired equipment directly connected to the ONR. Pings to 9.9.9.9 from the same equipment are running about 1 to 2 ms, and pings to 8.8.8.8 are about 2 ms.

It's not uncommon for public DNS servers to vary in how quickly they respond — and for their responsiveness to vary over time. I like to use two different DNS servers (from two different DNS server providers) for a little more robustness, but clients will vary in how they use them and how quickly they switch to an alternate DNS server if/when need be. Another possible approach is to set up your own DNS server which is then smart enough to figure out which "outside" DNS server to use, and when. But the downside is that if your DNS server falls over everybody on your LAN that attempts to use it is affected. A hybrid approach is possible, too: clients use your DNS server as primary and some external one (that your own DNS server doesn't use) as secondary.

....And then there are confidentiality, malware blocking, and "family friendly" considerations that may apply.

Higher latency to Cloudflare DNS is a common Singtel issue which WC will inherit.

I thought the issue was sorted out since I got better values some time ago, but unfortunately not really. The issue comes back.

I ususally use 1.1.1.3 and 9.9.9.9 as upstream DNS as they provide DNS filtering. I also use Adguard Home DNS (Pi-hole previously) for even better protections.

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ 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=49 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=34.7 ms

--- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.718/34.930/35.008/0.122 ms

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ 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=111 time=2.43 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=111 time=2.63 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=111 time=2.76 ms
64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=111 time=2.58 ms

--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.426/2.598/2.757/0.118 ms

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 9.9.9.9
PING 9.9.9.9 (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=1.94 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=2.08 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=2.25 ms
64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=1.99 ms

--- 9.9.9.9 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.936/2.064/2.250/0.119 ms

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 1.1.1.3
PING 1.1.1.3 (1.1.1.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 1.1.1.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=38.9 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.3: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=38.8 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.3: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=38.9 ms
64 bytes from 1.1.1.3: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=39.1 ms

--- 1.1.1.3 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 38.836/38.927/39.088/0.095 ms

 

[Alphas]

There seems to be a misconception that for WC 2.5Gbps, you have to use their ONR to maximize the 2,5 Gbps speed.
I had renewed the plan from 500 Mbps to 2.5 Gbps on the same old Huawei HG8244H bridged ONR (as ONT).
The bridged ONR is connected to the Asus GT-AX6000 on 2 ethernet cables and can achieved almost 2 Gbps on Speedtest at different time of the day. Turn on dual wan and the asus router can get two IP address from the connection, the 3rd Lan port on the ONR is connected to my TV streaming box, which will get the 3rd IP address.
Now the Asus router is not on double NAT and the DDNS and other functions works as normal!

 

[BBCWatcher]

whizcomms just came to my house today to activate 2.5gbps plan
on spot test the ONR to the guy laptop showing 900+ down n up on speedtest.net
but after the guy left, i just try plug Lan cable to my router to speedtest around 300+ down n up due to my old asus router, didnt think much since is old router

after which i unplug from router and plug Lan cable from ONR to my laptop for speedtest which only reflect 100+ down and up. did this multiple time but still shows same result.
Not sure if others face same situation as me. did the test with ONR to laptop connecting, no other device connected.

There are a few possibilities. In no particular order:

1. Your laptop's Ethernet port (or Ethernet adapter) is negotiating a 100 Mb/s connection (100BASE-T) to the ONR. You want a full duplex 1000BASE-T (~1.0 Gb/s) connection to be negotiated. Try swapping the Ethernet cable to see if that helps.

2. Your Ethernet adapter, or the laptop's Ethernet port (as applicable), is only capable of 100BASE-T. Check what the adapter/port is cable of.

3. The MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) size may not be correct. Ordinarily the correct MTU size should be figured out automatically.

4. The Speedtest server you chose is not a good one. Try selecting a different Speedtest server and see if you get different results.

5. You're using the Web-based Speedtest. This doesn't work as well as the Speedtest application when measuring higher speeds.

 

[BBCWatcher]

I ususally use 1.1.1.3 and 9.9.9.9 as upstream DNS as they provide DNS filtering. I also use Adguard Home DNS (Pi-hole previously) for even better protections.

9.9.9.9 is more comparable to 1.1.1.2 (security-related filtering only). Quad9 doesn't offer a "family" filter like Cloudflare does (1.1.1.3). You could try OpenDNS Family Shield (primary: 208.67.222.123) if you want something similar to 1.1.1.3. I think Singtel/Whizcomms should be about ~2 ms ping to OpenDNS Family Shield.

On edit: No, OpenDNS seems to be about the same as Cloudflare. I think Comodo Secure DNS (primary: 8.26.56.26) looks good paired with 9.9.9.9, but (like Quad9) it doesn't provide any "family" filtering. Control D (primary: 76.76.2.1) also looks like ~2 ms. Control D has a family filtering DNS server (primary: 76.76.2.4), but I think it filters a little too much.

 

[xiaofan]

9.9.9.9 is more comparable to 1.1.1.2 (security-related filtering only). Quad9 doesn't offer a "family" filter like Cloudflare does (1.1.1.3). You could try OpenDNS Family Shield (primary: 208.67.222.123) if you want something similar to 1.1.1.3. I think Singtel/Whizcomms should be about ~2 ms ping to OpenDNS Family Shield.

Thanks.

I just checked my Adguard Home DNS Settings and indeed I am using OpenDNS Family Shield and not Quad9 as upstream DNS provider. I also use ConroldD and Cloudflare Family DNS. Using DoH here.

https://family.cloudflare-dns.com/dns-query
https://freedns.controld.com/family
https://doh.familyshield.opendns.com/dns-query

 

[BBCWatcher]

I just checked my Adguard Home DNS Settings and indeed I am using OpenDNS Family Shield and not Quad9 as upstream DNS provider. I also use ConroldD and Cloudflare Family DNS. Using DoH here.

If you're using DoH and want more than malware-related filtering then Control D might be your best bet on a Singtel or Whizcomms line. Adguard DNS, OpenDNS, and Cloudflare DNS all seem to involve longer ping times from what I can observe. If you're doing a lot of DNS lookups then I suppose ~32 ms extra per lookup could add up to something human perceptible.

 

[xiaofan]

If you're using DoH and want more than malware-related filtering then Control D might be your best bet on a Singtel or Whizcomms line. Adguard DNS, OpenDNS, and Cloudflare DNS all seem to involve longer ping times from what I can observe. If you're doing a lot of DNS lookups then I suppose ~32 ms extra per lookup could add up to something human perceptible.

Adguard DNS is quite bad from Singtel/WC.

OpenDNS is not consistent. Cloudflare DNS is not consistent. Quad9 is also not so consistent. ControlD is also not consistent.

Google DNS is consistent but no filtering.

For pfSense side, I use local unbound DNS server with pfBlockerNG-devel.

BTW, I have native Singtel IPv6 as well which may help in certain cases. WC users do not have IPv6 in general (not I know of). So my results may not be exactly the same as you see on WC.

In the below case, Linux (as well as Windows) will use IPv6 for Cloudflare DNS and it has better latency than using IPv4.

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 family.cloudflare-dns.com
PING family.cloudflare-dns.com (2606:4700:4700::1003) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (2606:4700:4700::1003): icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=2.72 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (2606:4700:4700::1003): icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=3.02 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (2606:4700:4700::1003): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=2.81 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (2606:4700:4700::1003): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=2.62 ms

--- family.cloudflare-dns.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.620/2.792/3.024/0.149 ms

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -4 -c 4 family.cloudflare-dns.com
PING family.cloudflare-dns.com (1.0.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (1.0.0.3): icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=34.9 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (1.0.0.3): icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=35.0 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (1.0.0.3): icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=35.1 ms
64 bytes from family.cloudflare-dns.com (1.0.0.3): icmp_seq=4 ttl=49 time=35.3 ms

--- family.cloudflare-dns.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.859/35.074/35.316/0.165 ms

 

[xiaofan]

At this paticular time, Quad 9 DNS is good, similar to using Google DNS and Cloudflare DNS when using IPv6.

ControlD and OpenDNS family shiled are not so good (similar to Cloudflare Family DNS when using IPv4).

Google DNS

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 dns.google.com
PING dns.google.com (2001:4860:4860::8844) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from dns.google (2001:4860:4860::8844): icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=2.86 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (2001:4860:4860::8844): icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=3.04 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (2001:4860:4860::8844): icmp_seq=3 ttl=53 time=3.05 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (2001:4860:4860::8844): icmp_seq=4 ttl=53 time=2.93 ms

--- dns.google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.855/2.968/3.046/0.079 ms
mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -4 -c 4 dns.google.com
PING dns.google.com (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from dns.google (8.8.8.8): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=2.21 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (8.8.8.8): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=1.97 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (8.8.8.8): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=2.23 ms
64 bytes from dns.google (8.8.8.8): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=2.08 ms

--- dns.google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.972/2.121/2.234/0.105 ms

Quad9 DNS

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 dns.quad9.net
PING dns.quad9.net (2620:fe::9) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=2.56 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=2.76 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=2.87 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (2620:fe::9): icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=2.96 ms

--- dns.quad9.net ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.557/2.786/2.964/0.151 ms
mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -4 -c 4 dns.quad9.net
PING dns.quad9.net (9.9.9.9) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (9.9.9.9): icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=1.96 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (9.9.9.9): icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=2.31 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (9.9.9.9): icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=2.05 ms
64 bytes from dns9.quad9.net (9.9.9.9): icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=2.05 ms

--- dns.quad9.net ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.955/2.090/2.308/0.131 ms

OpenDNS FamilyShield

mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -c 4 doh.familyshield.opendns.com
PING doh.familyshield.opendns.com (2620:119:fc::3) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (2620:119:fc::3): icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=34.8 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (2620:119:fc::3): icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=34.8 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (2620:119:fc::3): icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=34.6 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (2620:119:fc::3): icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=34.7 ms

--- doh.familyshield.opendns.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.558/34.708/34.785/0.088 ms
mcuee@miniroute10g:~$ ping -4 -c 4 doh.familyshield.opendns.com
PING doh.familyshield.opendns.com (146.112.41.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (146.112.41.3): icmp_seq=1 ttl=48 time=34.8 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (146.112.41.3): icmp_seq=2 ttl=48 time=34.6 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (146.112.41.3): icmp_seq=3 ttl=48 time=34.8 ms
64 bytes from doh.familyshield.opendns.com (146.112.41.3): icmp_seq=4 ttl=48 time=35.1 ms

--- doh.familyshield.opendns.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 34.580/34.827/35.142/0.203 ms