[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: bind -> unbound/nsd
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:28:39AM -0400, 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.
So for what it's worth: I don't see any need to have a DNS server in
base. It may be traditional, but few people use it; the landscape's
changed since the days where it was something you'd have on e.g. a
department LAN along with a mail server and ftp server.
And unlike e.g. removing the mailer daemon, there's nothing in base
that depends on having local DNS service and also there's nothing that
the DNS server gains from being in base.
Plus, IMO, it's better to handle things that require frequent patching
in pkgsrc because it's a lot easier to keep them up to date.
(And yes, I serve some authoritative DNS from netbsd, so I have a
stake in this game too.)
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |