So I've configured my home connections to work with dnsmasq since it bundles a dhcp server with it and is quite nice to set up.
There is another package - isc-dhcp-... that also does this and perhaps is its intended purpose.
What am I losing out on?
2
-
A very related question: do I lose out on anything by using dnsmasq instead of BIND (or djbdns or whatever)?– user732Sep 14, 2012 at 14:32
-
2@BruceEdiger: That's similar but it's a separate question. And the answer is more complicated as in general DNS system is much more complicated than DHCP.– Krzysztof AdamskiSep 14, 2012 at 16:48
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
dnsmasq is simpler and because of that has less features. But if you don't need anything fancy and since you were already able to set it up, you probably don't need them.
Dnsmasq is designed for small, local networks. You can read on its site that by small networks, they mean up to 1000 computers so it's not that bad.
So my answer is: there is absolutely nothing wrong with using dnsmasq instead of isc-dhcp-server.
answered Sep 14, 2012 at 7:33
-
dnsmasq is fine for a small LAN. For instance, OpenWRT (open-source router firmware) runs dnsmasq for this purpose.– 9000Sep 14, 2012 at 20:31
-
Thanks! Just needed some opinion :) I have set up some kind of routing script myself with
dnsmasqso yes, nothing wrong with it :D– gontaduSep 25, 2012 at 10:40