3 ms·

If you want to do it on your local linux system, it's pretty easy: you just need to install bind9 and use `nameserver 127.0.0.1` in your /etc/resolv.conf Bind9

If you want to do it on your local linux system, it's pretty easy: you just need to install bind9 and use `nameserver 127.0.0.1` in your /etc/resolv.conf Bind9 has a poor reputation because of how difficult it is to use it to define zones (manage a domain name), but if you want to use it as a resolver, it's basically plug'n'play. Huge bonus included : if you want to flush the cache, you just need to run `sudo rndc flush`, so you don't have to wait for TTL timeout to test your newly configured domain name when you setup a website (you still have to restart your browser, because most of them do their own dns caching).

vertex-four 9y ago
Honestly, isn’t Unbound a better shout if you’re not going to be fiddling with it? Just install, run, and edit /etc/resolv.conf to point at 127.0.0.1.
- oelmekki 9y ago
  Well, you're describing exactly how to do it with bind9 :) What make you say Unbound is better?
  - swinglock 9y ago
    Unbound is more lightweight. All it does is recursive lookups, it has no option for being authoritative. If that's all you need then that's better. There are other options too, I don't know what makes Unbound better than PowerDNS Recursor or Knot Resolver.
  - LinuxBender 9y ago
    I prefer Unbound as it lets me set a min-ttl. This of course is taboo and comes with caveats, so you have to know what you are doing and the implications. Unbound has better support for DNSSEC as well.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Unbound is a bit less likely to come with distro-specific oddities in the default config, I think, mostly. It's a matter of preference.
jsjohnst 9y ago
> Bind9 has a poor reputation because of how difficult it is to use it to define zones YMMV, but bind’s poor reputation in my circles has completely to do with this: https://www.cvedetails.com/product/144/ISC-Bind.html?vendor_id=64 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/144/ISC-Bind.html?vendor_...

vertex-four 9y ago

Honestly, isn’t Unbound a better shout if you’re not going to be fiddling with it? Just install, run, and edit /etc/resolv.conf to point at 127.0.0.1.

oelmekki 9y ago
Well, you're describing exactly how to do it with bind9 :) What make you say Unbound is better?
- swinglock 9y ago
  Unbound is more lightweight. All it does is recursive lookups, it has no option for being authoritative. If that's all you need then that's better. There are other options too, I don't know what makes Unbound better than PowerDNS Recursor or Knot Resolver.
- LinuxBender 9y ago
  I prefer Unbound as it lets me set a min-ttl. This of course is taboo and comes with caveats, so you have to know what you are doing and the implications. Unbound has better support for DNSSEC as well.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Unbound is a bit less likely to come with distro-specific oddities in the default config, I think, mostly. It's a matter of preference.

jsjohnst 9y ago

> Bind9 has a poor reputation because of how difficult it is to use it to define zones YMMV, but bind’s poor reputation in my circles has completely to do with this: https://www.cvedetails.com/product/144/ISC-Bind.html?vendor_id=64 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/144/ISC-Bind.html?vendor_...