Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:31:17PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 09:48:25AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
>> >
>> >> Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw at zxy.spb.ru> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:29:09PM +0100, krad wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I doubt that will happen as you are asking to pollute
every release
>> >> >> installation for an edge condition when there is
numerous work arounds
>> >> >> that would be acceptable to most. eg two lines in
rc.conf will fix the
>> >> >> issue.
>> >> >
>> >> > This manual editing will be required by every install on
RPi, for
>> >> > example.
>> >>
>> >> No, it won't. Most people will just give the system a
valid DNS
>> >> configuration, and the clock will not be an issue.
>> >
>> > What invalid in my DNS configuration?
>>
>> You said that you configured 127.0.0.1 as your DNS server. You
didn't
>> say how (or rather where) you did that, but if you had used the address
>> of a working upstream recursive server, I suspect there wouldn't
have
>> been any problem.
>
> Configuring 127.0.0.1 as DNS server and enabling loacal_unbound cause
> unbound acts as recursive resolver. This is conventional setup.
> ("No forwarders found in resolv.conf, unbound will recurse."
> -- from /usr/sbin/local-unbound-setup)
I'll check on it if I get a chance.
> Using upstream recursive server with local unbound will cause same
> problem, IMHO, because unbound will be enfocing DNSSEC by the same
> way and rejecting all answers from upstream.
Well, we know that is not the case, because in that case nearly everyone
would be having the problem.