[Dclug] [Novalug] dnsmasq question

[James Ewing Cottrell 3rd]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Woof what?

Woof Sir? Just saying that I'm an old dog too. Probably older.

> As someone who has been using ISC BIND for many versions
> (since 1989, 

As someone who dropped the original Berkeley Bind into 4.2BSD (or was it 
4.3? I forget) at NIST circa mid 1980s...

ISC was created as a spinoff by UUNET/Usenix later, probably as a home 
for INN and BIND.

> yes, my InterNIC handle goes back to when there
> were only 5 figures of Internet hosts -- ended in "12" ;),

Lessee, how big was the HOSTS.TXT file that htable used to process?

Not sure, but I was RBJ at ICST-CMR.ARPA (which was previously NBS-UNIX 
Arpanet Node before we removed it from the IMP) before DNS was born. 
Netwise, we were 129.6, a pretty low Class B address.

> ISC BIND
> is _not_ designed for private, segmented networks.  It's designed
> more for the Internet.

Other than Intention of Use, I'm not sure I see much difference.

> The integrated DNS-RARP (BOOTP/DHCP) -- forward _and_
> backward -- is much better, especially with classless in-addr.arpa
> (let alone ip6.arpa) reverse records, DHCP MAC-IP integration,
> etc...  There are much better solutions than ISC BIND.

OK, I'll take your word for it, and investigate it myself.

> For a small number of subnets, and especially for a single, private
> subnet, DNSMasq is ideal.  Sorry, but I'm an "old dog" and I say
> anyone who argues otherwise is greatly mistaken.  And no, I'm not
> pushing DJB stuff -- I'm just saying DNSMasq exists, among other
> things (DNSMasq is not from him).

That DJB is a Hoot, that's what he is. An acquired taste.

> -- Bryan
> 
> P.S.  Setting up a single, private subnet with DNSMasq requires
> *0* configuration changes.  It reads your /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf.
> Done.  And yes, that includes for caching.  *0* configuration necessary.
> RTFM is minimal.

Well, ya can't beat that! I tend to generate my zones from /etc/hosts 
anyway, so great!

So ... my one question still remains...

Would you also recommend it as a caching-only nameserver over BIND?

JIM