> > 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." > -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 > >rgri...@freebsd.org > > -- > Ryan Steinmetz > PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228 EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7 > -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
