From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 22 20:54:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7DB1065692; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:54:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from louie@transsys.com) Received: from ringworld.transsys.com (ringworld.transsys.com [144.202.0.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DD18FC17; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:54:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from natpool1-68.transsys.com (c-69-141-150-106.hsd1.nj.comcast.net [69.141.150.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: louie) by ringworld.transsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA905C04; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes From: Louis Mamakos In-Reply-To: <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:31:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <8A3D6B19-8AD6-4222-8C26-4DF87D0709C6@transsys.com> References: <20090921112657.GW95398@hoeg.nl> <20090922135435.36a3d40e@lazybytes.org> <4AB90448.9020706@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Sergey Vinogradov , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: BIND in the base (Was: Re: tmux(1) in base) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:54:57 -0000 On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > > I would be perfectly happy to remove BIND, however most people want > some or all of dig, host, or nslookup in the base, which means that > about 60% or more of the BIND source code has to be there to allow > that. From there it's a pretty simple leap to "let's build it all then > because that's how we've always done it." > > The next-best thing would be to flip the knobs so that we're not > building named and friends by default which I'm happy to do if people > want it done, but no one ever comes up with a clear consensus to do > it. Ideally, FreeBSD out-of-the-box ought to have a caching DNS server as part of the base system. I don't understand myself why people don't run caching name servers on every Internet-connected host, and want to rely on some other external entity. Heck, I run 'em on my nanobad based systems on Soekris boxes; the footprint really isn't that large. BIND serves this purpose adequately, though I'm sure that there are endless other possibilities better/faster/smaller/cheaper/prettier.. louie