Re: Replacing BIND with unbound

Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> writes:
> Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
> > 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 our customers.

Good for you.  From what I've read, I should think it works just fine,
but I have no personal experience running unbound on large networks.
I'd love to try it out on the UiO network, but I doubt they'd let me...

My basis for stating that it is intended primarily for localhost and
SOHO is its feature set, which seems particularly well suited to that
kind of use.  Organizations with large networks generally need
authoritative nameservers as well, but they can of course have both
outward-facing BIND or NSD servers and inward-facing unbound servers, or
have their registrar handle the authoritative side.

DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"