dnsmasq vs. bind

[Shayne Patton]

Jonathan Hutchins wrote:

>On Friday 06 February 2004 10:25 pm, you wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What I was referring to was an actual alternative
>>to BIND or Berkley's dns, or (4give the usage :-) ) windows dns.
>>http://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/doc.html &
>>http://freshmeat.net/projects/dnsmasq/?branch_id=1991&release_id=148819
>>    
>>
>
>I think I would describe that poorly-named project as more of a replacement 
>for DHCPD that provides DNS as well.
>
>My DHCP configuration is static - the same address always goes to the same 
>machine, so my named can be static too.  Certainly, if you're in a dynamic 
>envronment this program would be great!
>
>
>  
>
Johnathan,

This is roughly the same evaluation I made after looking at these 
pages.  And I want to be able to use the dynamic environment that 
dnsmasq makes possible.  So far it's worked great.  So far I've had it 
on an 8 machine lan. 
To the ipcop people, on the networks you actually run ipcop on, how 
large is the client base of the  network you've actually used with 
IPCOP.  The reason I ask, is on the pages (see links above) for the 
dnsmasq project, it says it's for "small network" use.
Thank you for the responses, you all prompted me to re-look at IPCOP.  
I'ts under consideration now..........

Unviersally,
Shayne