13

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)?
    – user732
    Commented Sep 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. Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 16:48

1 Answer 1

19

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.

2
  • dnsmasq is fine for a small LAN. For instance, OpenWRT (open-source router firmware) runs dnsmasq for this purpose.
    – 9000
    Commented Sep 14, 2012 at 20:31
  • Thanks! Just needed some opinion :) I have set up some kind of routing script myself with dnsmasq so yes, nothing wrong with it :D
    – gontadu
    Commented Sep 25, 2012 at 10:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .