From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Jun 16 16:36:21 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FBD342C3C for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zi@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49mYjx5HmFz4KkD for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zi@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B58F7342C8D; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B555D342D1C for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zi@freebsd.org) Received: from exodus.zi0r.com (exodus.zi0r.com [71.179.14.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exodus.zi0r.com", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49mYjx2zVWz4Kbv; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zi@freebsd.org) Received: from exodus.zi0r.com (syn.zi0r.com [71.179.14.194]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by exodus.zi0r.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D380F6A8A81; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:36:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:36:19 -0400 From: Ryan Steinmetz To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Jaap Akkerhuis , Andriy Gapon , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <20200616163619.GA87881@exodus.zi0r.com> References: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49mYjx2zVWz4Kbv X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:701, ipnet:71.179.0.0/16, country:US]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:36:21 -0000 On (06/16/20 08:14), Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >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? > Unbound isn't really going to do anything useful without the network. I don't think it is unreasonable that it should depend on NETWORKING. I think we're in an edge case here and, perhaps, a better solution might be to have someone(tm) add in support in rc.conf to specify dependency overrides. So, perhaps you could set: dhcpd_after="unbound" Which would factor into the rcorder processing and make sure that dhcpd starts after unbound. This would allow people to fine-tune things when they run into cases like this. -r The idea that a daemon that depends on the network being functional >> > > >> 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 -- Ryan Steinmetz PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228 EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7