Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:45:39 -0400
From:      Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org>
To:        Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl>
Cc:        "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order
Message-ID:  <20200616184539.GA10414@exodus.zi0r.com>
In-Reply-To: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
References:  <202006151358.05FDwo7X076921@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On (06/15/20 16:35), Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> "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.
>
> >
> > > > 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.

afaik unbound still tries to refresh its trust anchor at start (or can).  
This won't work without NETWORKING.

-r

>
> > > >> 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).
>
>Regards,
>
>	jaap

-- 
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?20200616184539.GA10414>