Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:14:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> "Rodney W. Grimes" writes: > > > Um, yea, I guess the bigger question is why is the port different > > than the base system in this respect? > > The the unbound port existed years before it was decided that unbound > should replace bind in the base system. > > If you want the port to change, send a PR for the port so I won't forget this. > > > > > I would expect unbound to be the same, as unbound_local in almost > > every respect, especially with respect to its startup sequencing, > > providers and requires. > > Not really. For a start, the port has a different default configuration > then the one in base. Why does that change the startup order, required and providers? If the rc system is so sensative as to the configuration of daemons/servers we need to add a way to alter these better than editing /etc/rc.d/* files. (Which I present I do only as a last resort and last time I checked I had 2 local mods in there, one mostly case bird takes to long to get going during the routing startup, and one to cause ipfw loading earlier. > > > > > > I seen no problem in adding a BEFORE: NETWORKING to the port, covering > > > > a larger number of casses than your narrow BEFORE: dhcpd. > > I don't see a problem either. Ok, well, I just thought of one and not sure if it is an issue or not, doesng unbound have the ability to specify interfaces? If so those may not exist until NETWORKING has run? > > > >> On a related note, unbound rc script provides "unbound" service. > > > >> I think that maybe it should provide something more generic such as "nameserver" > > > >> or "dns-server" (not sure if there is an established name for that). > > > >> The reason I am saying this is that, IMO, if unbound is replaced with some other > > > >> name server implementation the rc dependency chains should stay the same. > > > > > > > > I do not see anything in the base system that uses unbound or local_unbound > > > > service name, so this looks like it could be straightforward, though there > > > > may be some ports that have use of this token. > > > > > > > > For the blue bikeshed I find that "server" is just noise in the token > > > > and that "dns" already has "s" for system, so just "dns" is good with me :-) > > > > > > That's a good point. > > I don't agree. The term dns is too generic. People are often running > dfferent nameservers on the same machine, as example: authoritative > and nonauthoritative (e.g. nsd & unbound). Given examples by others your right, we can not put all of these behind the knob "dns". > Regards, > jaap -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202006161514.05GFEHao081218>