On Monday 14 February 2005 2:41 am, Manuel Kasper wrote:
> On 14.02.2005 00:00 +0100, Raffaele Sandrini wrote:
> > Because we are wasting space with it? If dnsmasq is not the
> > standard why are we using it then for DNS instead of bind?
> 1. The first m0n0wall versions did have DHCP, but no DNS forwarder
> (that feature was added later)
> 2. At the time the DNS forwarder was implemented (so when we first
> used Dnsmasq in m0n0wall), the latest version of Dnsmasq didn't even
> have DHCP server support.
> Please inform yourself before complaining.
I think that's a rather harsh attitude. I agree with Raffaele. If Dnsmasq
can do everything that dhcpd does currently, and we fix an annoying bug
(static lease host names aren't added to dns forwarder) in the process,
then why shouldn't we at least plan to consolidate in the future?
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f)