3 ms·

Never liked using dnsmasq. Always felt like too much in one tool. A local caching resolver, dhcp server, and tftp/pxe boot setup were always things I preferred

Never liked using dnsmasq. Always felt like too much in one tool. A local caching resolver, dhcp server, and tftp/pxe boot setup were always things I preferred to configure separately.

cwillu 6mo ago
That line of thinking is exactly why I ended up using maradns for my dns hosting way back. 10/10, no regrets, would recommend.
- magicalhippo 6mo ago
  What do you use for DHCP and how do you have DHCP update local DNS entries? Or do you just rely on mDNS to work?
  - SoftTalker 6mo ago
    I use dhcpd. It doesn't update local DNS entries. I have no need for that.
  - cwillu 6mo ago
    I use maradns to provide dns, not to resolve it. My vps does not require its own dhcp server.
koyote 6mo ago
I agree, it also goes against the Linux "way of doing things". For example, Opnsense uses the dhcp portions of dnsmasq only (and unbound for the dns parts) which just feels 'wrong'.
- gerdesj 6mo ago
  When I first came across Linux you would download the code (very slowly) to /usr/src/linux (extract and cd) and run "make config". You'd answer quite a lot of y/n and later y/n/m questions and then copy a binary and later on run a script to put things in place. Then you would fix up lilo and off you trot ... or not 8) Is that the Linux way you are on about? No obviously not 8) I think you mean the "unix idealized but never really happened exactly but we are quite close if you squint a bit ... way" where each tool does one job well and the pipeline takes up the slack.
- PunchyHamster 6mo ago
  dhcpd is probably more quirky than dnsmasq, all software from ISC is kinda ass (also technically dhcpd is end of life)
PunchyHamster 6mo ago
That's kinda the point. It is "i run a small router" app in a box. DHCP and DNS are connected, PXE requires DHCP entries, so to do a simple setup you'd need to glue together at least 3 daemons otherwise, all with different config syntax
infinet 6mo ago
There are few dnsmasq (only?) features that are indispensable to some. Examples: sending query of *.example.com to certain upstream servers, or returning NXDOMAIN for phishing sites, or adding all resolved IPs for *.example.org to an ipset for policy routing. The last one works on FreeBSD as well although BSD does not have ipset. The list of *.example_xyz.com can be huge and it is said recent dnsmasq can handle them efficiently.

Never liked using dnsmasq. Always felt like too much in one tool. A local caching resolver, dhcp server, and tftp/pxe boot setup were always things I preferred to configure separately.

cwillu 6mo ago

That line of thinking is exactly why I ended up using maradns for my dns hosting way back. 10/10, no regrets, would recommend.

magicalhippo 6mo ago
What do you use for DHCP and how do you have DHCP update local DNS entries? Or do you just rely on mDNS to work?
- SoftTalker 6mo ago
  I use dhcpd. It doesn't update local DNS entries. I have no need for that.
- cwillu 6mo ago
  I use maradns to provide dns, not to resolve it. My vps does not require its own dhcp server.

koyote 6mo ago

I agree, it also goes against the Linux "way of doing things". For example, Opnsense uses the dhcp portions of dnsmasq only (and unbound for the dns parts) which just feels 'wrong'.

gerdesj 6mo ago
When I first came across Linux you would download the code (very slowly) to /usr/src/linux (extract and cd) and run "make config". You'd answer quite a lot of y/n and later y/n/m questions and then copy a binary and later on run a script to put things in place. Then you would fix up lilo and off you trot ... or not 8) Is that the Linux way you are on about? No obviously not 8) I think you mean the "unix idealized but never really happened exactly but we are quite close if you squint a bit ... way" where each tool does one job well and the pipeline takes up the slack.
PunchyHamster 6mo ago
dhcpd is probably more quirky than dnsmasq, all software from ISC is kinda ass (also technically dhcpd is end of life)

PunchyHamster 6mo ago

That's kinda the point. It is "i run a small router" app in a box. DHCP and DNS are connected, PXE requires DHCP entries, so to do a simple setup you'd need to glue together at least 3 daemons otherwise, all with different config syntax

infinet 6mo ago

There are few dnsmasq (only?) features that are indispensable to some. Examples: sending query of *.example.com to certain upstream servers, or returning NXDOMAIN for phishing sites, or adding all resolved IPs for *.example.org to an ipset for policy routing. The last one works on FreeBSD as well although BSD does not have ipset. The list of *.example_xyz.com can be huge and it is said recent dnsmasq can handle them efficiently.