unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order

[Chris]

On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Rodney W. Grimes freebsd-rwg at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net said

> > 
> > On (06/16/20 08:14), Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >>Ok, well, I just thought of one and not sure if it is an issue or not,
> >>doesng unbound have the ability to specify interfaces?  If so those
> >>may not exist until NETWORKING has run?
> > >
> > 
> > Unbound isn't really going to do anything useful without the network.  I 
> > don't think it is unreasonable that it should depend on NETWORKING.
> 
> Well then the current setup for local_unbound is counter to that,
> as it is BEFORE: NETWORKING
> 
> > I think we're in an edge case here and, perhaps, a better solution might 
> > be to have someone(tm) add in support in rc.conf to specify dependency 
> > overrides.
> 
> dns and configuration are a chicken/egg problem, not really an edge
> case, and a person must make a decision as to how to deal with that.
> 
> > 
> > So, perhaps you could set:
> > 
> > dhcpd_after="unbound"
> > 
> > Which would factor into the rcorder processing and make sure that dhcpd 
> > starts after unbound.
> > 
> > This would allow people to fine-tune things when they run into cases 
> > like this.
> 
> Even beside the unbound problem, this is a good idea.  It would
> fix my "I need ipfw before routing as without ipfw my ospf packets
> get blocked and things take much longer to come up problem."
Honestly. I'm really inclined to agree with Rodney. rcorder should
really be a more fine-grained utility.
What about something like:
BEFORE: NETWORKING: pf
or
BEFORE: NETWORKING: ipfw
or
BEFORE: NETWORKING: unbound
etc, etc...
I think there *may* be a better direction. *But* this, at least
should be an easy direction to add with few repercussions. Yes?

> 
> 
> > -r
> > 
> > The idea that a daemon that depends on the network being functional
> > >>  > > >> On a related note, unbound rc script provides "unbound" service.
> > >>  > > >> I think that maybe it should provide something more generic such
> > as "nameserver"
> > >>  > > >> or "dns-server" (not sure if there is an established name for
> > that).
> > >>  > > >> The reason I am saying this is that, IMO, if unbound is replaced
> > with some other
> > >>  > > >> name server implementation the rc dependency chains should stay
> > the same.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > I do not see anything in the base system that uses unbound or
> > local_unbound
> > >>  > > > service name, so this looks like it could be straightforward,
> > though there
> > >>  > > > may be some ports that have use of this token.
> > >>  > > >
> > >>  > > > For the blue bikeshed I find that "server" is just noise in the
> > token
> > >>  > > > and that "dns" already has "s" for system, so just "dns" is good
> > with me :-)
> > >>  > >
> > >>  > > That's a good point.
> > >>
> > >> I don't agree. The term dns is too generic. People are often running
> > >> dfferent nameservers on the same machine, as example: authoritative
> > >> and nonauthoritative (e.g. nsd & unbound).
> > >
> >>Given examples by others your right, we can not put all of these
> >>behind the knob "dns".
> > >
> > >> Regards,
> > >> 	jaap
> >>-- 
> >>Rod Grimes                                                
> >rgrimes at freebsd.org
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ryan Steinmetz
> > PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228  EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Rod Grimes                                                
> rgrimes at freebsd.org

--Chris