[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Jesse Guardiani <jesse at wingnet dot net>
 To:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] ISC dhcpd and dnsmasq
 Date:  Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:15:52 -0500
On Monday 14 February 2005 12:12 pm, Chris Dickens wrote:
> I agree - let's leave ISC there.  Flash memory ain't expensive any more and
> it's useful for those who are familiar with it's configuration versus
> dnsmasq.

Fine by me, I guess. Can anyone think of a good way to get static lease
host names from ISC into dnsmasq automatically?


> --Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Rae [mailto:PRae at aminocom dot com] 
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:10 AM
> To: m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall-dev] ISC dhcpd and dnsmasq
> 
> 
> Dnsmasq doesnt support a lot of the advance features that ISC does - or
> atleast didnt last time i looked at it.
> 
> I'll give you most of these options arent available through the gui, but you
> can specify them through config.xml
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Guardiani [mailto:jesse at wingnet dot net]
> Sent: 14 February 2005 16:02
> To: m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall-dev] ISC dhcpd and dnsmasq
> 
> 
> 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?
> > 
> > Because:
> > 
> > 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)
http://www.wingnet.net