Re: Replacing bind by unbound

[Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>]

On 31/10/2012 10:02, Martin Husemann wrote:
> What it can not do (easilay/apparently - I didn't dig too deep), 
> which
> I do with bind a lot, is serve a local view of a zone to the inside
> net, that differs from the official outside view. It can be told to 
> use
> a different primary server for such a case though, which would have
> meant for me to run nsd as well on a different port and have unbound
> forward queries there - while with bind I can do this with a single
> daemon.
>
> What do you think?

I second the import of unbound. I would also argue the need to import 
nsd as well.
What I do is run nsd on my external addresses and unbound on my 
internal addresses instead of using different ports.
My only grip is that neither product currently offers dynamic dns 
updates.

Thanks

Roy