dnsmasq vs. bind
linuxh3d at comcast.net
Sat Feb 7 04:25:07 CST 2004
Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
>On Friday 06 February 2004 07:12 pm, Shayne Patton wrote:
>>I was just wondering if any of you have any experience with dnsmasq.
>I've had a masqueraded network for years now. My mailserver's NT4 with
>Exchange 5.5, but I can do SMTP from within the firewall. I forward external
>HTTP to a webserver behind the firewall.
>I used to run this with diald on a dial-up connection, but I went broadband as
>soon as TW had it available.
>I don't have any idea what you mean by Masq vs. bind. I run a Berkeley DNS
>server on the firewall itself, caching for external, private for internal.
>Internal network gets DHCP and WINS from the NT4 box.
>As far as scaling goes, you want very fast RAM - for larger networks a
>dedicated appliance probably works better. For a moderate size office, up to
>say half a class C, a 200MHz Pentium should be adequate.
Thank you for the response. I know what hardware i need to run, rather
what hardware I have to work with and to what extent it will scale and i
have a 300mhz for the firewall/router machine which i will probably run
the dns on as well. What I was referring to was an actual alternative
to BIND or Berkley's dns, or (4give the usage :-) ) windows dns.
. I don't need anything HUGE, but enough to handle (w/ relative ease)
up to 50 clients. I know the hardware is up to it because I did it with
bind (actually only 34 clients that time) and even 2kserver, though I
had more ram at that point.
More information about the Kclug