Bind9 or DNSMasq

Von Fugal von at
Tue Dec 21 08:48:38 MST 2010

<quote name="Make Compile" date="Tue, 21 Dec 2010 at 00:54 -0800">
> Hi, 
> Based on experience. what do you prefer with these two services? I
> have BIND9 running as local DNS server, I'm looking to have DNSmasq
> instead bind9 since it is more lightweight than bind. Any suggestions?

I haven't set up bind9, but I have fiddled with and maintained
installations. I have set up dnsmasq several times. I don't know if it's
more lightweight, but it is definitely more versatile, even if that is
only on the surface. That is to say, it's a lot easier to configure to
do cool things.

For example:
In dhcpd (another cool thing is that dnsmasq does dns and dhcp together,
which kinda just makes sense)
if exists user-class and option user-class = "gPXE" {
  filename "http://.../";
} else {
  filename "undionly.kpxe"

In dnsmasq it's super simple:


This is the only time I've had occasion to play with the "tags" in
dnsmasq, but I can definitely imagine them being very cool and useful in
many a scenario.

Anyway, dns for your local dhcp'd network "Just Works" with dnsmasq,
unless you use broken fedora or redhat, then you have to configure
those machines to do the only reasonable thing and send hostname with
the dhcp request. >:|

One thing I'm not sure about is doing dynamic zones in dnsmasq, or zones
at all, for that matter. I haven't done anything besides local networks
with it. I would guess it probably at least does some kind of zoning. I
certainly recommend it for any local or home network. I'd have to do
some looking into it before recommending it for anything large.
Von Fugal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the PLUG mailing list