unbound and (isc) dhcpd startup order

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> 
> 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                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org
> 
> -- 
> Ryan Steinmetz
> PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228  EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org