Re: ntpdate(8) and unbound(8) dependencies during boot

[Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 15:46:02 -0700
John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 16:47, Sad Clouds wrote:
> } On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 09:40:36 -0400 Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>
> wrote: } 
> } > So, this is a request to explain how a 'default install' has this
> } > problem, or to clarify the problem statement.
> } 
> } Well NetBSD-9 comes with "unbound" which is supposed to replace
> "bind"
> 
>      unbound is a caching resolver, it does not replace BIND.
> 
> } as a recursive/caching name server. If you care about security, then
> 
>      However, NetBSD-9 also comes with nsd which is a full fledged
> name server.  As for myself, I have complex BIND configs that take
> advantage of a number of advanced features, so I have no intention
> of switching.

I'm kinda curious, when specifically talking about non-authoritative,
recursive, caching name server/resolver, what advantages does bind have,
over unbound? The nsd and unbound were developed by the same people,
whether you use nsd or bind as the authoritative name server is really
up to you and I'm in no way suggesting to replace one or the other.
What many people are doing are replacing bind with unbound for
recursive DNS queries, because many stub resolvers don't support
advanced features like DNSSEC and DoT.