On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:18:29 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua wrote:
so when unbound is going to hit the base?
when someone who is capable of and interested in integrating it has
the time to do the work.
On 2011-11-24, Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:18:29 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua wrote:
so when unbound is going to hit the base?
when someone who is capable of and
On 2011-11-22, Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net wrote:
i haven't tried dnscache for at leat 5 years, i'm sure things have improved
there.
ha, ha ha. The last release was 10 years ago. I see some uses for the other
components of djbdns (although there are better alternatives in most cases)
but
BIND lumps these two functions together, with the effect of confusing
people, but they are really two separate tasks...
It allows you to lump these two functions together (not sure if this is
still true about BIND 10), but it is still recommended to split them.
Unless I'm misreading you, what
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:44:38 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org wrote:
BIND lumps these two functions together, with the effect of
confusing people, but they are really two separate tasks...
It allows you to lump these two functions together (not sure if this
is still true
On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov g...@bestnet.kharkov.ua wrote:
so when unbound is going to hit the base?
when someone who is capable of and interested in integrating it has the time
to do the work.
On 11/22/11 02:50, Manuel Ravasio wrote:
Chris,
why would you suggest unbound instead of bind?
Which advantages do you
see?
Thanks,
Manuel
My answer, Chris's may vary...
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
IF you are doing anything beyond
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Chris Cappuccio ch...@nmedia.net wrote:
Good alternative: OpenBSD + unbound
Hi,
what about unbound vs dnscache?!
Any document related?
Thanks,
-f
On Nov 22 08:16:21, Nick Holland wrote:
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
IF you are doing anything beyond a simple resolver, I'd agree
completely...take the time to learn unbound/nsd (or djbdns or ...)
However, right now, unbound is a
On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 13:16, Jan Stary wrote:
On Nov 22 08:16:21, Nick Holland wrote:
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
IF you are doing anything beyond a simple resolver, I'd agree
completely...take the time to learn unbound/nsd (or
Lest I'm mistaken, both serve DNS data, but in different roles.
nsd is for serving authoritative zones, not for resolver work.
unbound is a resolver.
Regards,
Rogier
Manuel Ravasio [manuelrava...@yahoo.com] wrote:
Chris,
why would you suggest unbound instead of bind?
Which advantages do you
see?
unbound is very fast, will automatically relookup expired entries and has less
weird/odd issues like keeping a negative cache entry for hours or even days.
its
On 11/22/11 10:31, Claer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 13:16, Jan Stary wrote:
On Nov 22 08:16:21, Nick Holland wrote:
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
IF you are doing anything beyond a simple resolver, I'd agree
completely...take
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Nick Holland
n...@holland-consulting.net wrote:
On 11/22/11 10:31, Claer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 13:16, Jan Stary wrote:
On Nov 22 08:16:21, Nick Holland wrote:
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
El 22/11/11 15:16, Nick Holland escribis:
On 11/22/11 10:31, Claer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22 2011 at 13:16, Jan Stary wrote:
On Nov 22 08:16:21, Nick Holland wrote:
Long term, BIND is done.
Long term, unbound will probably be replacing it in OpenBSD.
IF you are doing anything beyond a simple
fRANz [andrea.francesc...@gmail.com] wrote:
Hi,
what about unbound vs dnscache?!
Any document related?
unbound is very fast and plays well with misbehaving servers and poorly
implemented zone data
dnscache (the last time i tried it using it on a large scale) could not resolve
certain
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM, patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless I'm misreading you, what you say doesn't make much sense.
It makes perfect sense and is in fact also the recommended way to run BIND.
The setup you suggest is more involved. Two servers: one resolving,
and
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Lars Hansson romaby...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM, patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unless I'm misreading you, what you say doesn't make much sense.
It makes perfect sense and is in fact also the recommended way to run BIND.
Hi
DNS Google NS 1 : 8.8.8.8NS 2 : 8.8.4.4
Good alternative or Bad alternative ?
Best regards
Good alternative: OpenBSD + unbound
hvom .org [hvom@gmail.com] wrote:
Hi
DNS Google NS 1 : 8.8.8.8NS 2 : 8.8.4.4
Good alternative or Bad alternative ?
Best regards
--
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering;
all the rest are merely games
On 11/21/2011 12:35 PM, hvom .org wrote:
Hi
DNS Google NS 1 : 8.8.8.8NS 2 : 8.8.4.4
Good alternative or Bad alternative ?
Best regards
It's a Good Thing to remember when setting up a system, as they are
easy-to-remember emergency DNS resolvers, though I wouldn't recommend
7:02 PM
Subject: Re: DNS Google ?
Good alternative:
OpenBSD + unbound
22 matches
Mail list logo
