Considering recent (and arguably successful, if slow because of their large scale) efforts to make encrypted HTTP communication ubiquitous using SSL/TLS via such CAs as Let's Encrypt, and the presence of the DNSCrypt protocol, why aren't clients and servers offering encrypted DNS more common?

In most cases, it seems like DNSCrypt requires the installation of additional software on the client, which can then access a select few servers (or even just proxies) running DNSCrypt on their ends. Meanwhile, many of the large, commonly-used DNS providers don't actually allow for DNSCrypt connections.

closed as primarily opinion-based by Steffen Ullrich, techraf, S.L. Barth, Arminius, Xander Dec 11 '16 at 16:33

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    Similar: why is IPv6 adoption so slow, why is DNSec adoption slow, why people don't patch fast enough even though there are patches out there, why people still use Windows XP... . All of this is probably caused by limited resources and too much other important things. So compared to all the other unfixed issues: why should DNS providers and end users consider encrypted DNS more important than the other problems? What do they gain and how much does it cost to roll it out? And are there cheaper alternatives which cover the main problems relevant for the end user too? – Steffen Ullrich Dec 11 '16 at 7:05

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.