Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: bind -> unbound/nsd

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> To slightly expand that. You don't need nsd if you just want to serve a 
> few local host names for a local network. You only need nsd if you want 
> to provide an authoritive DNS server. IMO that is a decently small use 
> case that it doesn't justify the incluse into the base system.

I'd agree. It highlights the fact that you're better off picking a feature 
list and seeing who matches. On the basis of license/features Bind is hard 
to beat. On the basis of license && security it's hard to accept. 

Bind basically looks like this: 

[ ] Recursive resolution
[ ] Caching only
[ ] Authoritative server support
[ ] Split horizon
[ ] Response rate limiting (RRL)
[ ] Clustering/replication
[ ] Dynamic reloadability
[ ] NXDOMAIN redirection
[ ] BSD or acceptable License
[ ] GeoIP
[ ] Response policy zones
[ ] Database support
[ ] Written in C


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index