Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread patrick keshishian
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2010/08/25 11:57, Gregory Edigarov wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200 >> Jakob Schlyter wrote: >> >> > On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote: >> > >> > > Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, m

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Brad
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 09:50:48 Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:27 +0200 > > Henning Brauer wrote: > > * Gregory Edigarov [2010-08-25 11:03]: > > > There is something I never understand: why change more for less? > > > i.e. why change bind which is feature reach and matur

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Henning Brauer
* Gregory Edigarov [2010-08-25 15:54]: > why only nsd to the base, and not unbound? hasn't been done yet. as simple as that. neither has bind been removed yet. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Se

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:00:27 +0200 Henning Brauer wrote: > * Gregory Edigarov [2010-08-25 11:03]: > > There is something I never understand: why change more for less? > > i.e. why change bind which is feature reach and mature for > > nsd/unbound, that doesn't have 2/3 of bind features. > > beca

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Henning Brauer
* Gregory Edigarov [2010-08-25 11:03]: > There is something I never understand: why change more for less? > i.e. why change bind which is feature reach and mature for nsd/unbound, > that doesn't have 2/3 of bind features. because bind is a misdesigned piece of shit. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:57:36AM +0300, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200 > Jakob Schlyter wrote: > > > On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote: > > > > > Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial > > searching shows NSD doesn't

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2010/08/25 11:57, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200 > Jakob Schlyter wrote: > > > On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote: > > > > > Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial > > searching shows NSD doesn't support caching nor vi

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-25 Thread Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:30:25 +0200 Jakob Schlyter wrote: > On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote: > > > Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial > searching shows NSD doesn't support caching nor views (although, my > googling skills suck). Are these being

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-22 Thread Jakob Schlyter
On 23 aug 2010, at 04.16, patrick keshishian wrote: > Is the idea to replace bind altogether from base? If so, my initial searching shows NSD doesn't support caching nor views (although, my googling skills suck). Are these being considered? The plan is that Unbound will be imported as a caching r

Re: Testing NSD

2010-08-22 Thread patrick keshishian
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:35:50AM +0200, Jakob Schlyter wrote: > hi, Hello. > I've just update the in-tree version of NSD to v3.2.6 and would really > appreciate some testing results on various platforms as well as feedback on > the default configuration. > > The next step - if everything works

Testing NSD

2010-08-22 Thread Jakob Schlyter
hi, I've just update the in-tree version of NSD to v3.2.6 and would really appreciate some testing results on various platforms as well as feedback on the default configuration. The next step - if everything works nicely - is to enable NSD in the build and remove the NSD port. Note: zonec is cal