From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 8 09:24:37 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 E139B106564A for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:24:37 +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 7FD3F1790DA; Sun, 8 Jul 2012 09:24:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FF951C5.8030400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 02:24:21 -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: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" References: <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> In-Reply-To: <6A57F340-D9F0-4352-B009-4C211CB931F9@lists.zabbadoz.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 09:24:38 -0000 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