> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:01:46PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Jan Klemkow <[email protected]> [2012-02-17 10:45]: > > > There is an other problem with replacing bind with unbound and nsd. > > > If you have a setup where you need to do authoritative and recursive > > > resolving of domains with the same socket and you have to synchronise > > > with an extern dns server over zone transfers. > > > > I see no reason to support or even remotely take such a stupid setup > > into consideration.
On 2012/02/17 13:18, Jan Klemkow wrote: > I was working on replacing bind with unbound and nsd a half year ago. > I run into this problem. I think in local networks you get such setups > where you have to serve clients with global request like google.de and > local requests like mail.inhouse.company.com. > > I just want to hint this problem. > In my opinion the replacement of bind with unbound and nsd is more > important than the support for this kind of setups :-) I don't see why there's a need to "synchronise with an extern dns server over zone transfers" for this, I haven't seen a sane setup where local-zone and forward-zone aren't enough for this side of things. (note you may need 'nodefault' if you want to override the as112 reverse zones). Views are a different matter but they don't tend to get used very much in sane setups either ;)
