# Unbound, stubby or dnscrypt-proxy

**URL:** <https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/unbound-stubby-or-dnscrypt-proxy/9378>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [May 8, 2018, 8:16am UTC](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/unbound-stubby-or-dnscrypt-proxy/9378 "2018-05-08T08:16:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 39

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jpgpi250](https://discourse-cdn.pi-hole.net/user_avatar/discourse.pi-hole.net/jpgpi250/32/286_2.png) [@jpgpi250](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/u/jpgpi250)\
**Post date:** [May 18, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/unbound-stubby-or-dnscrypt-proxy/9378/39 "2018-05-18T16:04:15Z")

</div>

> [@DL6ER](#):
>
> Oh, you can

I'll have to wait until my [test](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/ipv6-and-unboud-stubby-dnscrypt-proxy/9543/2) ends. As you now, I'm currently running dnsmasq with 6 resolvers (3x IPv4 and 3x IPv6), stubby, unbound and dnscrypt-proxy, this to determine dnsmasq's favorite (fastest resolver). The test has started on Tuesday (15/05/18) and I will not touch my pi until next Tuesday, this to get an impartial result.

As you also know, I've indicated the [unbound solution](https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/unbound/) is doing very well, and is rapidly becoming my favorite, especially since it handles the [DNSSEC algorithms](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/dnssec-test-fails/9586/2) better than dnsmasq.

This is why I've asked @gecko, who seems to be running stubby+DNSSEC to publish his findings. More results, will lead to a better evaluation.

But you're right, I can, and probably will...

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.pi-hole.net/t/unbound-stubby-or-dnscrypt-proxy/9378)._