Amazon Route 53 Reviews

My main use case for Amazon Route 53 is to manage our domain hostings, including domain name mapping, website and IP address mapping, load balancer mapping, and SSL certificate mapping. More than 18 domains, and the hosted zones, I am managing under a single Amazon Route 53 control panel under AWS.

So it includes all kinds of records for my website, whether it's a mail exchanger record, MX record, SPF record, or domain key record, as well as the forward record to protect my website and avoid any kind of blacklisting of my website globally. That's why I'm using Amazon Route 53. It is really very good compared to other domain service providers.

The most valuable functions or features of Amazon Route 53 are the monitoring feature, the domain DNS failover feature I'm using, and DNS security. These three are vital, and health check is obviously included because using Amazon Route 53, I regularly monitor the health checks of my websites as well as servers and load balancers. If the endpoint becomes inaccessible or unavailable, Amazon Route 53 automatically redirects all the traffic, meaning reroutes all the traffic to another endpoint. This is what I'm doing under Amazon Route 53.

For Amazon Route 53, improvements I see include the need for a DNS firewall and a domain-based SSL checker security feature. DNS security is the most important part for me. I feel that whenever you host any kind of website, the first and most important thing is to protect it with a valid SSL.

The secure socket layer is essential for the HTTPS green lock in the browser. If I forget to deploy SSL on a website and if my domain hosting is under Amazon Route 53, there should be a mechanism that Amazon Route 53 protects the insecure website using SSL, a thing that the end user does not know whether the SSL certificate comes from the domain, meaning from Amazon Route 53 or from the website.

I have been working with Amazon Route 53 for seven years.

The initial setup of Amazon Route 53 is very easy; I can set it up within a few minutes only. I also use Terraform, the infrastructure as code, to apply the hosting records under Amazon Route 53. For that, I just need to have good administrative rights and identity and access management rights for Amazon Route 53.

Regarding the stability of Amazon Route 53, I don't see any downtime with whatever infrastructure I maintain. From my experience, I don't have any minor technical glitches within the span of 14 years using Amazon Route 53, so I would rate it a nine.

The scalability of Amazon Route 53 is good, and I would rate it an eight.

The initial setup of Amazon Route 53 is very easy; I can set it up within a few minutes only. I also use Terraform, the infrastructure as code, to apply the hosting records under Amazon Route 53.

I would rate the pricing for Amazon Route 53 as obviously costly; it is high compared to others.

I would recommend Amazon Route 53 for all company sizes because the charges are very low compared to other hosting providers. However, it is not meant for very small or small companies because sometimes small companies can't even afford 12 to 14 USD per year to maintain domain records. Instead, they build a Linux-based system that acts as a domain control panel, a DNS.

For me, Amazon Route 53 is required because I don't need to maintain my local hardware. It's a software model, and I don't need to worry about backend hardware. If my hardware fails, I need to pay for it, the operating system, and the bandwidth, so if I use Amazon Route 53, I don't need to worry at all. That's why I prefer Amazon Route 53.

I don't see any main competitor for Amazon Route 53, but I strongly believe that Cloudflare is one of the greatest competitors for Amazon Route 53.

I am not using AI-driven applications with Amazon Route 53; whatever I do is totally manual work because I haven't introduced AI in Amazon Route 53. The company is not looking into it right now because we need to maintain records, and I don't need AI just to manage my Amazon Route 53.

It's obvious AI is good from the application point of view, but from the infrastructure, setting up an AWS cloud infrastructure or GCP infrastructure, meaning Google Cloud infrastructure, I am not fully dependent on AI. My experience is enough to build an IT infrastructure and optimize costs, and that's why I haven't introduced AI.

I rate Amazon Route 53 a nine out of ten.

We are not using AWS for ourselves, but we create solutions on AWS products for our customers.

Majorly it is EC2, RDS, and in certain cases, we also do Kubernetes and then storage solutions, network solutions, and Amazon Route 53.

It is not only Amazon Route 53 that we use as an individual solution. There are multiple products from AWS which go along with the complete solution. Amazon Route 53 is also one of them. Typically, if you understand AWS, Amazon Route 53 is used to resolve the DNS.

Your questions are mostly towards the website hosting or a specific application hosting. When it comes to the services that we offer to our customers, they do not just remain within the bracket of websites. They go beyond that. Our solutions are very wide and they are created for enterprises, typically large enterprises.

AWS is a reputed brand and is very well accepted by the enterprise customers. The services are backed by the SLAs which are very well accepted by the industry. The reliability and the durability of the services are quite high. AWS has their operations at multiple regions, which gives the advantage of choosing the facility or choosing the setup which is nearer to the customer location. Hence, it offers the minimum latency for the user to access the services.

AWS has a very wide marketplace. Customers can pick and choose other services which are third-party services that can also be integrated with the solution. The choice of onboarding any third-party solution provider is also there, which eventually gives customers enough flexibility and enough scalability to utilize the services as they need.

Since everything comes as managed services from AWS at the back end, when it comes to routing particularly, it is very well managed by AWS. We do not need to put in our hands and create the policies which will have defined paths. Since most of the services are consumed over the internet, it has been very well managed by AWS at the back end.

The health check feature is available in ALBs. It is a part of Elastic Load Balancer. That also helps to make sure that the virtual machine is highly available and if it does not qualify all the health checks, then it is being taken out.

There is always a scope for improvement when it comes to price. Even though AWS is available at multiple regions, but within a region, if they can expand their availability domains, that would further give the comfort to the customer because the services will be delivered as nearer to the customer as possible.

Almost six years now.

They are very stable and scalable, both.

They are stable and scalable, both.

We have never taken support from AWS. We have our own teams who manage the support.

We have not brought any third-party product from AWS Marketplace.

It is very straightforward and pretty easy. Once you understand the basic concept, then it is easier for any customer to deploy the services in AWS. That is the reason why AWS is so widely accepted by the enterprise customers.

I cannot give pricing for Amazon Route 53 as a standalone. For AWS services, I would put somewhere near six or seven. They are not cheap. Now we have other solutions coming from other service providers, they come at better commercials. There is always a scope to improve on the pricing.

The health check feature is available in ALBs. It is a part of Elastic Load Balancer. That also helps to make sure that the virtual machine is highly available and if it does not qualify all the health checks, then it is being taken out. The review rating provided is eight.

I have been using Amazon Route 53 for hosting applications to get the DNS right. Additionally, I use it to route to ELBs and directly to EC2 instances, pointing to CloudFront.

Amazon Route 53 is valuable because it offers aliasing, allowing me to route different services with A records against the DNS. This feature is beneficial for maintaining A records with hosted zones and performing DNS lookups for applications. Furthermore, it aids in better DNS management and facilitates routing to internal services that can identify IP addresses.

I do not see any areas for improvement with Amazon Route 53 at the moment.

I have been using Amazon Route 53 for the last five to six years.

It is a stable solution. I have not seen any hiccups or issues with Amazon Route 53.

I have not faced any problems with scalability, scaling up or down.

I have hardly contacted any support person directly. Most issues are resolved by referring to the documentation, which is well described.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy. I just have to subscribe, check the charges, and then use it with a pay-as-you-go model.

The setup cost follows a pay-as-you-use model.

I would recommend Amazon Route 53 for use. Use it for better DNS management, and if you want to route to internal services capable of identifying IP addresses, definitely go for it. I rate the overall solution nine out of ten.

We are using Route 53 for application security. We are also using it for computing, EC2, and setting up our server plus a complete infrastructure.

Route 53 helps us manage security without manually handling it. We can maintain availability and horizontal scaling effectively.

One of the best advantages is managed security. Unlike open-source solutions, we do not have to manage it manually. We use EC2 instances and set up a complete infrastructure, including auto-scaling groups, target groups, VPC, VPC security, and VPC peering.

There is room for improvement in restricting access through one website from S3 buckets, as it still seems not very obvious.

We've been using it for more than five years.

The solution is stable. Throughput and availability are excellent, and the horizontal scale is already addressed, meeting our requirements.

Scalability is not a problem here as we are utilizing the auto-scaling feature effectively.

Customer service is satisfactory. They provide a normal developer level of support, and within twenty-four hours for non-critical issues, which is acceptable for us.

Positive

Right now, I have changed to another program so I am not part of the previous team, but in an earlier project, we used to handle it.

The installation is straightforward and does not require more than one technician.

We have definitely seen some return on investment. The main factors are time-saving and security, even if the cost is slightly higher.

Pricing is a bit more, but it's acceptable since they're taking care of the resources, upgrade, and security. The cost may be slightly higher, yet, due to the values they provide, it's justified.

We used to work with Fortinet.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

As a developer, I use Amazon Route 53 for my clients. I buy domains from AWS and route them through Route 53. I use Route 53 for failover routing, geolocation routing, latency management, and traffic flow management. I also deploy various applications and route services using Route 53 for my clients.

I find Amazon Route 53 valuable for its ability to manage DNS records and efficiently route traffic with features like failover routing and geolocation routing. It is used for failover routing, geolocation routing, latency management, and traffic flow. It allows me to provide seamless services to my clients by ensuring zero latency and efficient traffic management.

There is a need for technical knowledge to use Amazon Route 53 effectively. If a person without much technical background could use it, I would have rated it a ten out of ten.

I have been using Route 53 for almost eight to nine years.

I have not encountered any stability issues. I have not experienced bugs or breakdowns in its performance.

Amazon Route 53 is scalable as I use automation with YML files to handle scalability needs, and it works well.

The Amazon support team is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy to do.

The pricing is not significantly different compared to other services. It's fine.

Amazon Route 53 is excellent for those dealing with traffic management and routing services. It's good to use it for your application if you know your traffic flow and latency needs. I rate it an eight out of ten since technical knowledge is needed. 

Route 53 is used for delivering data transfer to clients and AWS services that are in the EC2s. It is also used for traffic management through various routing policies such as simple routing, latency-based routing, geolocation routing, and failover routing.

Route 53 monitors and checks the health of web applications by performing health checks on endpoints, including web servers and API gateways. It automatically redirects traffic to healthy endpoints in case any failures are detected.

Route 53 is valued for its health check feature and reliability. Additionally, it is appreciated for its high availability, scalability, DNS management, and group policies.

In my project, everything is already configured, and we focus on monitoring and health checks. There isn't room for recommending new configurations. However, the initial setup isn't something we are focusing on improving.

I have been using AWS products for thirteen years, and specifically Route 53 for nearly eight years.

I haven't faced any latency or bugs with Route 53. It has been stable without issues.

Route 53 provides high availability and scalability, especially in DNS management.

Amazon's customer support is very good with a quick response time. They provide solutions whenever needed.

Positive

The initial setup of Route 53 is easy as long as it's configured according to requirements.

I work with various teams including technical teams, developer teams, and application teams to ensure that Route 53 is aligned with client requirements.

Once the service is configured, it's important to monitor it to ensure traffic is managed effectively.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use Route 53 as a global naming service. For anyone to access services with a recognizable name like PeerSpot dot com, Route 53 is a necessity. 

It is utilized not only for public access but also as a private aliasing service to secure and protect services. 

Additionally, Route 53 offers a DNS firewall to safeguard against DNS vulnerabilities.

The introduction of Route 53's DNS firewall has provided an added layer of protection, giving us peace of mind. It helps track and log DNS requests, thus preventing any potential DNS vulnerabilities and offering better security controls.

The simplicity and reliability of Route 53 make it valuable. It is cost-effective and integrates easily with other AWS services, making it simple to expose and manage services. The integration with certificate services is also seamless. 

Additionally, Route 53 is straightforward both via the console and API, providing ease of use.

I'm not a network specialist, so I don't know the deep specifics of DNS and what might need improvement on an international level. 

However, it's necessary that any improvements adhere to international ISO standards. A general area for improvement with AWS services is that while AWS quickly releases new services, sometimes these services are not as mature as expected, which can be frustrating. 

It's often advisable to wait for version two of any new service.

I have been working with Route 53 for eight years.

Route 53 is a reliable service that is always available and provides consistent performance. It does not require maintenance.

There are no limitations to the scalability of Route 53; it will scale to more than anyone will need.

There has been no need to reach out to technical support for Route 53, as it is a simple service. There is a wealth of information available online for any questions that might arise.

Positive

I have worked with Microsoft Active Directory for DNS in enterprises in the past. However, AWS services offer better automation and integration through Terraform, SDK, and APIs, making them preferable.

The initial setup of Route 53 is straightforward. It requires upfront planning for domain naming and account hierarchies to facilitate efficient deployment and management.

The implementation of Route 53 has provided essential security improvements, particularly with the DNS firewall. It logs and audits DNS requests, adding control previously missing and ensuring peace of mind.

Route 53 is very cost-effective, adding to its value proposition.

There is no real choice if you want public services to be accessible. However, I recommend using Route 53 for internal private naming spaces as well, as it centralizes management and is easy to manage.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

For Route 53, I use it for DNS purposes. I give addresses to my services and protect some of my services with it, especially those with production layers that cannot be accessed directly. I serve different endpoints and use Route 53 to ensure that services are only accessed with appropriate security settings.

Route 53 allows me to standardize addressing and make it more memorable, which helps in identifying services more quickly.

The route mapping feature of Route 53 is valuable as it allows me to map services according to our requirements. This standardizes our address system.

Error tracing could be made more intuitive. They could include rules that affect the route analysis, making tracing easier and smoother.

I've only worked with it for several months since I have been using it in my new company.

As long as I have been using it, I haven't really faced any problems with it. I have not experienced any outages or downtime. Everything's been pretty stable.

The scalability is maintained by AKS, and Route 53's scalability part is primarily involved with load balancing. I don't have much knowledge beyond this, but it's mostly related to load balancing since many users access it.

I haven't really interacted with the technical support, so I cannot give a rating on that.

The setup is not difficult. I followed guidelines provided by AWS and some tutorials to replicate the process. Fortunately, the process didn't have many problems other than the issue with trace analysis.

Not that much, maybe two or three people who have the current knowledge, as I am new here.

The ROI is pretty fine, but it could be improved. Currently, I haven't seen any tangible return on investment yet.

I haven't compared it to other cloud services, so I cannot give a precise evaluation. The pricing options are good for now.

Try to understand the concepts of DNS with Route 53 and go through the documentation as it helps with the initial configuration.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use AWS services such as EC2, Route 53, Elastic Beanstalk, VPC, and IAM. I use Route 53 specifically for DNS and managing domains and URLs.

I have used Route 53 to integrate applications and systems across different geographic locations.

Host zones and integrated features such as Health Checks and DNS routing are valuable features of Route 53.

The number of domain types available on AWS, such as the .br domain for Brazil, should be expanded.

I have used Route 53 for a few years.

The stability of the service with Route 53 is okay, and I have not experienced any problems with stability.

Scalability is okay. Route 53 is working very well, and I have never had any problems with it.

Amazon services are very stable, and there are few problems. The professional services on AWS are very specialized, and I rarely need support.

Positive

The initial setup and deployment are more difficult.

Route 53 is more expensive. It depends on the type of feature you use, as each feature has its own distinct pricing.

I recommend the service to other people, but Brazilian users may have difficulty because the .br domain is not supported.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.