From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 8 09:19:50 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A8B11065672 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:19:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8433E179422; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:19:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FF950B5.3080207@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:19:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120621 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh References: <4FF2E00E.2030502@FreeBSD.org> <86bojxow6x.fsf@ds4.des.no> <89AB703D-E075-4AAC-AC1B-B358CC4E4E7F@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8C3A1.9080805@FreeBSD.org> <20472.51031.308284.775990@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <07345CE5-EE3A-413D-84BC-C9DA63FCBB9E@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <07345CE5-EE3A-413D-84BC-C9DA63FCBB9E@bsdimp.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling?=, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Sm=F8rgrav?= , Garrett Wollman , FreeBSD Hackers Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 09:19:50 -0000 On 07/07/2012 19:44, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:33 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> < said: >> >>> BIND in the base today comes with a full-featured local resolver >>> configuration, which I'm confident that Dag-Erling can do for unbound >>> (and which I would be glad to assist with if needed). Other than that, >>> what integration are you concerned about? >> >> The utilities (specifically host(1) and dig(1)) are the only >> user-visible interfaces I care about. I don't see any need for there >> to be an authoritative name server in the base system. So long as the >> resolver works properly and does DNSsec validation.... > > The only reason I want it in the base system is that ports don't cross build very well, but the base system does. That's a weak +1 for keeping something in the base system, but I'll be the first to admit it is a second or third tier argument at best. With the proper ports infrastructure, this issue goes away. Meanwhile, we're already in basic agreement that importing unbound into the base is a good stopgap. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection