Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 19:28:57 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Replacing BIND with unbound Message-ID: <CADLo839ZwYs%2BT5DbKDu0OyEK6889ixzc%2BbUUhN5TPfZxiEa02w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <op.wg6p18uh34t2sn@tech304> 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> <4FF9ECB5.5090507@FreeBSD.org> <863951nrpy.fsf@ds4.des.no> <op.wg6p18uh34t2sn@tech304>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 July 2012 16:16, Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 05:39:37 -0500, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> wr= ote: > >> What sort of benchmarks do you envision? Unlike named, unbound is >> intended to serve only one client (localhost) or a small number of >> clients (a SOHO). > > > Highly disagree; we use it (ISP) as our resolving nameserver for all of o= ur > customers. As Doug has pointed out, you can always get BIND from a port; not every installation requires a heavyweight resolver. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839ZwYs%2BT5DbKDu0OyEK6889ixzc%2BbUUhN5TPfZxiEa02w>