Yes, that's probably a reason. Although I don't find it that very likely 
that dnsmasq would die. But who knows...I really can't tell from the 
short time I've tried it.

Cheers,

--
Thomas Hertz
 
Manuel Kasper wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Thomas Hertz wrote:
>
>  
>
>>dhcp server of m0n0wall serves _two_ nameservers to its clients. The
>>first is the m0n0wall itself, serving through its internal caching
>>nameserver dnsmasq, and the other is the first of the "public"
>>nameservers entered under "General Setup". It's pretty easy hacking
>>m0n0wall and tell it to only give out the internal caching nameserver,
>>but I can't find a reason to why anyone would want to have both the
>>caching nameserver and the external nameserver.
>>    
>>
>
>That code was written by Bob Zoller - he probably intended that behavior
>as a kind of fall back in case the DNS forwarder should fail. If we can't
>find a good reason to keep things this way, I'll just remove the two
>offending lines (61-62 in services.inc):
>
>---
>	if ($syscfg['dnsserver'][0])
>		$dnscfg .= "," . $syscfg['dnsserver'][0];
>---
>
>Greets,
>
>Manuel
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>
>  
>