Re: bind -> unbound/nsd

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Aug 21, 10:28am, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
} On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:13:13PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
} > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:55:48AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
} > > For example, I would use nsd on exactly one machine in my environment,
} > > my public facing DNS server which is exactly where it belongs.
} > > 
} > > On the other hand, all my other BSD machines run unbound as a local
} > > caching resolver.
} > 
} > 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 am strongly opposed to removing basic server functionality present
} in BSD Unix for over 30 years -- and still in widespread use -- from NetBSD.
} I don't mind replacing BIND but all its functionality should be replacd.
} 
} If you want to have to guess which version of basic Internet server
} software might happen to be on the system you're working on today, Linux
} is ---------->over there.

     I find this comment quite confusing.  Having to guess which
software (and how to configure it) that provides a particular
functionality isn't much different then guessing whether or not
the functionality is provided by default.

     I use NetBSD to provide authoritative name service for a small
service provider.  I'm also in the camp that if you're going to
remove BIND from base, then it is probably better not to bother
with providing an authoritative name server, especially since very
few systems are going to need one.  People that do need one are
either installing something from pkgsrc, or going through the hassle
of converting to a different program.  The latter is likely more
troublesome.

}-- End of excerpt from Thor Lancelot Simon