Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 12:36:19 -0400 From: Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <20200616163619.GA87881@exodus.zi0r.com> In-Reply-To: <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <202006161514.05GFEHao081218@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200616163619.GA87881>