Website Review
What is NLnet Labs?
NLnet Labs is a nonprofit foundation that builds open-source software for two foundational parts of the internet: the DNS (the system that translates domain names into addresses) and routing (how networks find paths to each other). Its stated focus is keeping that core infrastructure secure, resilient, and continuously available. It also contributes to standards development and applied research, and offers professional support alongside its free software.
Its main tools, as listed on its site, split into two families:
| Software | Category | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Unbound | DNS | A recursive resolver — the piece that looks up answers on behalf of users |
| NSD | DNS | An authoritative nameserver — publishes the records for the domains it serves |
| Cascade | DNS | A DNSSEC signing solution |
| Krill | Routing | RPKI certificate authority software |
| Routinator | Routing | RPKI relying-party software |
| Rotonda | Routing | A BGP application platform |
Who it's for. Network operators, ISPs, hosting providers, enterprises, and DNS or routing specialists who run infrastructure themselves. Because the software is open source, it's also used by people who want to inspect, modify, or self-host rather than depend on a closed service.
The trade-off to weigh. You get open code, no vendor lock-in, and support from the people who wrote it — but you take on the operational responsibility of running and updating that infrastructure yourself. That suits teams with in-house expertise and less so those who'd rather hand DNS or RPKI off entirely.
A concrete next step. If you're choosing where to start: pick Unbound if you need a resolver for your network, NSD if you're publishing authoritative zones, and Routinator if you're validating RPKI data for routing security. Check the current release notes before deploying — the site flags security fixes, including a recent Unbound update addressing multiple vulnerabilities.
For background on the standards side of this work, the IETF develops the DNS and routing protocols these tools implement.
Which NLnet Labs software should I use for authoritative versus recursive DNS?
For authoritative DNS, use NSD; for recursive DNS, use Unbound. Both come from NLnet Labs, a nonprofit foundation that develops open source DNS and routing software.
The two core roles
- Authoritative nameserver — NSD. An authoritative server holds the actual zone data for domains you are responsible for and answers queries about them. NSD is described as a fast and robust authoritative DNS nameserver. Choose it when you host zones for yourself or customers and need to serve answers reliably.
- Recursive resolver — Unbound. A resolver takes queries from clients (your users, your internal network, your applications) and tracks down answers by querying authoritative servers. Unbound is described as a lean and versatile recursive DNS resolver. Choose it when you need to answer queries on behalf of clients rather than publish your own zones.
A quick way to decide: if the question is "what are the records for this domain I own?", you want NSD. If the question is "please find the answer to this query for my users," you want Unbound.
Where the other tools fit
NLnet Labs' page also lists signing and routing software, which solves different problems:
| Tool | Role | Use it when |
|---|---|---|
| Cascade | DNSSEC signing solution | You need to sign zones at scale |
| Krill | RPKI Certificate Authority | You run a CA for resource certificates |
| Routinator | RPKI Relying Party software | You want to validate RPKI data |
| Rotonda | BGP application platform | You need flexible BGP processing |
These are complements, not alternatives, to NSD and Unbound. A common setup runs NSD and Unbound side by side on separate hosts, since authoritative and recursive roles are usually kept apart.
Next step
If you are unsure which you need, look at your network diagram: a server that publishes zone files is authoritative (NSD), and a server that clients point their DNS settings at is recursive (Unbound). Many operators end up running both, since the two roles serve different audiences and are best kept on separate infrastructure.
How does Unbound compare to BIND or other DNS resolvers?
Unbound is a lean, security-focused recursive resolver from NLnet Labs, and it competes most directly with BIND and other recursive resolvers rather than with authoritative nameservers. The practical difference is philosophy: Unbound does one job — recursion and caching for clients — and does it with a small codebase and a hardening-first design, while BIND is a larger, older suite that also acts as an authoritative server and supports dynamic updates, catalog zones and a broader feature set.
NLnet Labs describes Unbound as a "lean and versatile recursive DNS resolver" and positions its software around "open source innovation, mission critical reliability," with professional support available directly from the people who build it. That last point matters operationally: when a resolver misbehaves at 3 a.m., access to the maintainers can be worth more than a feature checklist.
Where the differences show up
| Consideration | Unbound | BIND | Other resolvers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary role | Recursive resolver and cache | Combined authoritative + recursive suite | Mostly recursive (e.g. Knot Resolver, PowerDNS Recursor) |
| Footprint and attack surface | Deliberately small, modular | Larger, more moving parts | Varies; several are also compact |
| Feature breadth | Focused on recursion, DNSSEC validation, caching | Very broad, including authoritative features | Narrow by design |
| Typical fit | Recursive service for ISPs, enterprises, appliances | Organisations wanting one suite for both roles | Similar to Unbound, chosen on ecosystem or distro preference |
Choosing for a real deployment
Imagine you run DNS for a mid-sized network: a few thousand internal clients, DNSSEC validation required, and a preference for running resolvers on the same Linux images you already manage. Unbound fits because you install it, point it at a root hints file, tune cache and thread counts, and monitor it — there is no authoritative zone data to configure. If the same team also hosts public zones, BIND lets you run both roles from one product and one set of documentation, at the cost of a bigger surface to patch and reason about.
Two decision criteria cut through most of the debate:
- Do you need authoritative serving too? If yes, BIND or a dedicated authoritative server such as NSD (also from NLnet Labs) alongside Unbound is the cleaner split.
- How much do you value a minimal, auditable resolver? Smaller codebases are easier to review and tend to have fewer exposed features to misconfigure.
If you are evaluating this for a specific network, the next step is to check how each candidate handles your must-haves: DNSSEC validation, DNS-over-TLS or DNS-over-HTTPS, response-rate limiting, and per-zone or per-client policy. Start with the Unbound documentation at NLnet Labs and compare it against the BIND documentation at ISC before committing.
What is the difference between Krill and Routinator for RPKI?
Krill and Routinator both come from NLnet Labs and both deal with RPKI, but they sit on opposite sides of the RPKI system. Krill is a Certificate Authority (CA) implementation: it publishes signed RPKI objects. Routinator is a Relying Party (RP) implementation: it collects and validates other people's RPKI objects. In short, Krill issues and signs; Routinator fetches and verifies.
What each tool does
Krill — Flexible and scalable RPKI Certificate Authority. It runs the CA side of RPKI: managing resource certificates, signing ROAs, and serving the resulting repository so that others can validate your statements about which ASNs may originate which prefixes.
Routinator — Lightweight RPKI Relying Party software. It gathers RPKI data from the global repositories, validates it against the trust anchors, and produces a validated output (such as VRP lists) that routers or other software can consume to filter BGP announcements.
Side-by-side
| Aspect | Krill | Routinator |
|---|---|---|
| RPKI role | Certificate Authority (publisher) | Relying Party (validator/consumer) |
| Main output | Signed certificates and ROAs in a repository | Validated ROA payloads (VRPs) for route filtering |
| Typical operator | RIRs, NIRs, and organisations running their own CA | Network operators who want to validate others' RPKI data |
| Direction of data | Publishes outward | Pulls inward from the global RPKI |
| Deployment style | Service you operate and keep available | Tool or service you run to produce filtered data |
Which one you need
The choice depends on your role, not on preference:
- If you must issue ROAs for address space you hold, or you are building a delegated RPKI hierarchy, you want a CA like Krill.
- If you want to drop invalid BGP announcements using RPKI data produced by others, you want a relying party like Routinator.
- Many organisations run both: Krill to publish their own ROAs, Routinator to validate the wider RPKI and feed route filters.
A useful next step is to map your own responsibility: are you a source of RPKI statements, a consumer of them, or both? That answer picks the tool. If you are unsure whether your network should filter on RPKI at all, start with a validator in monitoring mode before enforcing decisions on live BGP.
How do I get professional support for NLnet Labs software?
You get professional support directly from NLnet Labs, the nonprofit foundation that builds the software — not through a reseller or ticket-queue intermediary. The site describes this as "direct access to the people who built it." For community help, use their community forum.
H3 What NLnet Labs offers
- Professional Support — a paid option listed alongside Community Support and a Support Policy.
- Community Support — the forum, where you contact other users and the project team.
- Support Policy — documents what each tier covers, so check it before assuming a response time or scope.
H3 Products covered The support offering sits alongside their DNS and routing software: Unbound (recursive resolver), NSD (authoritative nameserver), Cascade (DNSSEC signing), Krill (RPKI CA), Routinator (RPKI relying party) and Rotonda (BGP platform). If you run Unbound or NSD in production, professional support is the relevant route; for a small lab or evaluation setup, the community forum is usually enough.
H3 How to decide
- Choose professional support if you run authoritative or recursive DNS for paying customers, need defined escalation, or can't wait on volunteer responses.
- Use community support for configuration questions, testing, and non-urgent issues.
- Check the Support Policy first to see whether your question type and severity are in scope.
H3 Practical next step Write down your deployment before contacting anyone: which product and version, role (authoritative vs. recursive), scale, and the exact symptom with logs. That turns a vague request into something the team can answer in one pass. Then start at NLnet Labs and follow the support links from there.
For security problems specifically, the site points to a separate security-report route rather than the support channel — use that instead of a forum post.
What is Cascade used for in DNSSEC signing?
Cascade is NLnet Labs' purpose-built DNSSEC signing solution. It handles the cryptographic signing of DNS zones so that resolvers can validate the answers they receive. Rather than signing zones by hand or bolting signing onto a general-purpose nameserver, Cascade is designed around the signing workflow itself: key management, signature generation and rollover, and publishing signed zone data.
What it does in practice
- Zone signing: Produces RRSIG records for the records in a zone, using keys tied to the zone's DNSSEC policy.
- Key lifecycle: Manages signing keys and their rollovers, which is the part most often done incorrectly by hand.
- DNSSEC publication: Keeps the signed zone and its DS/DNSKEY chain of trust consistent so validating resolvers accept the data.
Where it fits in a DNS stack
Cascade is one component among several from the same foundation. The others solve different problems, which matters when you are choosing what to deploy:
| Software | Role |
|---|---|
| Cascade | DNSSEC signing |
| NSD | Authoritative nameserver |
| Unbound | Recursive resolver |
| Krill | RPKI Certificate Authority |
| Routinator | RPKI Relying Party |
| Rotonda | BGP application platform |
A common architecture pairs a signer such as Cascade with an authoritative server such as NSD, which serves the signed zone to the outside world. The signing and serving roles stay separate, so each can be operated and scaled on its own terms.
Who benefits
Operators of authoritative DNS who need DNSSEC without hand-rolling key ceremonies, and organisations that want signing handled by software maintained by the people who also work on DNS standards. The trade-off is the usual one for a dedicated signer: you gain a purpose-built, auditable signing workflow, but you add a component and an internal zone-transfer path between signer and nameserver that must be monitored.
Next step
If you already run an authoritative server, confirm how it receives signed zones — typically via AXFR/IXFR — and whether that transfer path is authenticated. Then check whether Cascade's key rollover model matches your operational policy before committing to it.
For the software itself and its documentation, see NLnet Labs. For the standards that define DNSSEC signing and validation, the IETF datatracker is the reference point.
User reviews (0)