On 2011-11-24, Gregory Edigarov wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:18:29 + (UTC)
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov 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
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:18:29 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov 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.
>
well, if i understand it correctly, steps
On 2011-11-23, Gregory Edigarov 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 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:44:38 + (UTC)
Stuart Henderson 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 about BIND 1
>> 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,
On 2011-11-22, Chris Cappuccio 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 dnscache has al
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Lars Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM, patrick keshishian
> 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.
not only recommended by bind bo
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:14 AM, patrick keshishian 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 the other dealing
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
cer
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 anythi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Nick Holland
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.
>>> >
>>> > IF you
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
>> > c
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.
i
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
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 unbou
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
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Chris Cappuccio wrote:
> Good alternative: OpenBSD + unbound
Hi,
what about unbound vs dnscache?!
Any document related?
Thanks,
-f
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
Chris,
why would you suggest unbound instead of bind?
Which advantages do you
see?
Thanks,
Manuel
--
Hana wa sakuragi, hito wa bushi
>
> From: Chris Cappuccio
>To: hvom .org
>Cc: misc@openbsd.org
>Sent: Monday,
November 21, 2011 7:02 PM
&g
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
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;
al
Hi
DNS Google NS 1 : 8.8.8.8NS 2 : 8.8.4.4
Good alternative or Bad alternative ?
Best regards
22 matches
Mail list logo