Replacing BIND with unbound (Was: Re: Pull in upstream before 9.1 code freeze?)

[Doug Barton]

On 07/08/2012 01:07, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:45 , Doug Barton wrote:
> 
>> On 07/07/2012 16:34, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>> On 7. Jul 2012, at 23:17 , Doug Barton wrote:
> 
>>>> Other than authoritative DNS, what features does unbound lack that you want?
>>>
>>> DNS64 as a start. 
>>
>> Personally I would classify that as a highly-specialized request, and
>> would point you to the bind* ports. I acknowledge that others may have a
>> different view.
> 
> Just to give you an idea - there are US nation-wide networks that depend
> on it these days.  It's become an essential feature unfortunately.

I didn't say it was unimportant, unused, or un-anything else. I said
that we already have a solution for it, which doesn't need to stay in
the base.

In fact, no base BIND version supports DNS64 robustly. 9.8 (in
9-RELEASE) supports it weakly. If you have an enterprise network that
relies on DNS64 you're infinitely better off with BIND 9.9, which hasn't
been (and isn't likely to be) imported.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection