Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:24:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?) Message-ID: <4FF951C5.8030400@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <6A57F340-D9F0-4352-B009-4C211CB931F9@lists.zabbadoz.net> References: <CA%2BQLa9B-Dm-=hQCrbEgyfO4sKZ5aG72_PEFF9nLhyoy4GRCGrA@mail.gmail.com> <4FF2E00E.2030502@FreeBSD.org> <86bojxow6x.fsf@ds4.des.no> <89AB703D-E075-4AAC-AC1B-B358CC4E4E7F@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8C3A1.9080805@FreeBSD.org> <0AFE3C4A-22DB-4134-949F-4D05BBFC4C6C@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4FF8CA35.7040209@FreeBSD.org> <6A57F340-D9F0-4352-B009-4C211CB931F9@lists.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/08/2012 01:07, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:45 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>> On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
>>>> Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you want?
>>>
>>> DNS64 as a start.
>>
>> Personally I would classify that as a highly-specialized request, and
>> would point you to the bind* ports. I acknowledge that others may have a
>> different view.
>
> Just to give you an idea - there are US nation-wide networks that depend
> on it these days. It's become an essential feature unfortunately.
I didn't say it was unimportant, unused, or un-anything else. I said
that we already have a solution for it, which doesn't need to stay in
the base.
In fact, no base BIND version supports DNS64 robustly. 9.8 (in
9-RELEASE) supports it weakly. If you have an enterprise network that
relies on DNS64 you're infinitely better off with BIND 9.9, which hasn't
been (and isn't likely to be) imported.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FF951C5.8030400>