From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Jun 16 18:45:42 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 16C83346E6E for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:42 +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 49mcb96w6vz4WnL for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zi@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id EB7E4347483; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:41 +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 EB4703473EE for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:41 +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 49mcb94TTnz4WbM; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:45:41 +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 475E86A8A81; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:45:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:45:39 -0400 From: Ryan Steinmetz To: Jaap Akkerhuis Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Andriy Gapon , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order Message-ID: <20200616184539.GA10414@exodus.zi0r.com> References: <202006151358.05FDwo7X076921@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <202006151435.05FEZBKs045916@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49mcb94TTnz4WbM 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 18:45:42 -0000 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