hello, Ondřej Surý: > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]>wrote: > >> hello list, >> >> concerning the following entities and the many other entites that >> provide dns services: >> >> cesidian; >> unifiedroot; >> public-root; >> opennic; >> >> 1. >> what is considered better practice for use with unbound: >> > > Best practise is _not_ to use alternative roots.
if i only incorporate a named.cache hint file from the traditional root servers, without additional stub/forward entries in unbound.conf, will i still be able to resolve for example new nation TLD's such as .ti .ko and .uu ? will i be able to resolve gTLD's such as .satan (which cesidian can) .africa (which namespace can) or .geek (which opennic can) ? > > >> 1.1 >> merging the above individually provided named.cache entries into one >> file with the existing iana root-servers.net named.cache; or >> >> 1.2 >> manually adding forward/stub zone entries into the .conf file instead to >> resolve other domains that would normally be un-resolvable? >> > > This. > > >> 2. >> why ? >> > > Because they provide conflicting namespaces (root vs. alt_root, but also > alt_root vs. alt_root), so you need to pick which one you will be using > anyway. > > But I would like to repeat again. Don't use alt_roots, they don't play well > (and never will) with unified DNS tree, and there's really no strong reason > (no reason at all from my POV) for using them. > > O. > _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
