Re: local-unbound vs. dns/unbound

From: Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 07:59:25 UTC 
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:50:54 +0100
void <void@f-m.fm> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The local_ bit in local_unbound is because it's meant to be used as a 
> local resolver. In other words, for the machine it runs on.
> 
> Your use-case (servicing dns requests from the LAN), calls for dns/unbound.
> I don't know if local_unbound can be wedged to support external clients.
> That might be possible. But in use cases like yours, I've always used the port.
> -- 

From what I've seen, there is nothing special about local_unbound and
the config files work the same. If your config allows local clients to
connect to local_unbound then everything should work.

The only difference I've noticed, local_unbound is using builtin I/O
multiplexing (instead of third party event library), which appears to
rely on select(2). There is a limit of around 1024 file descriptors for
DNS sockets due to FD_SETSIZE, which you get a warning about when you
specify more than 1 thread.

Not sure why they couldn't use poll(2) which is very well supported
across different platforms and does not have such low limits on file
descriptors.