Just a quick question, of the two DHCPD services, is there any reason to choose isc-dhcp-server over DNSMASQ?
I noticed a number of how too write-ups going through using isc-dhcp-server with DNSMASQ as the DNS server only, instead of using DNSMASQ for both items, and was just wondering why use the two programs instead of just the one?
-
Northern Mike
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:41 am
Re: isc-dhcp-server vs. DNSMASQ
Depends on your prior experience with a particular program I guess.
Dnsmasq is generally simple to get working, uses little resources, is reliable and well maintained. An extremely valuable piece of software, IMHO.
In addition, if you start looking for "advanced" features, you'll find out that dnsmasq is quite capable.
(like the dns-dhcp update, where dhcp clients get automatically resolvable via DNS. Dnsmasq gives it to you, when doing the same with ISC dhcpd + bind9 is something you'll remember...)
Dnsmasq is generally simple to get working, uses little resources, is reliable and well maintained. An extremely valuable piece of software, IMHO.
In addition, if you start looking for "advanced" features, you'll find out that dnsmasq is quite capable.
(like the dns-dhcp update, where dhcp clients get automatically resolvable via DNS. Dnsmasq gives it to you, when doing the same with ISC dhcpd + bind9 is something you'll remember...)
"S'il n'y a pas de solution, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de problème." Les Shadoks, J. Rouxel
Re: isc-dhcp-server vs. DNSMASQ
The ISC tools (dhcpd and bind) have been around a long time (I started using them almost 20 years ago). They're also incredbly powerful in what they can do.
dnsmasq is (i think) newer and more limited in what it can do. However it's probably good enough for the average home user and probably a lot easier to configure for operation on a small network (one or two small subnets).
Personally I prefer the isc dhcp server, but then I've used it on my home network and also larger networks (many thousands of subnets handled by a few dhcp servers).
Setting up dhcpd to log the switch and switch port an IP is sent out on and also limit dhcp leases to one lease per switch port (dhcp option 82 and spawning subclasses) is a little bit more memorable (although I think only took a day or so - which also involved working on the relevant switch configs to make it work).
dnsmasq is (i think) newer and more limited in what it can do. However it's probably good enough for the average home user and probably a lot easier to configure for operation on a small network (one or two small subnets).
Personally I prefer the isc dhcp server, but then I've used it on my home network and also larger networks (many thousands of subnets handled by a few dhcp servers).
I don't particularly remember much pain in setting ddns up with isc-dhcpd and bind, few config lines and it just works. Some of the domains used for ddns are also restricted in who can access them (dns server is public, but not all records on it are).epoch1970 wrote: (like the dns-dhcp update, where dhcp clients get automatically resolvable via DNS. Dnsmasq gives it to you, when doing the same with ISC dhcpd + bind9 is something you'll remember...)
Setting up dhcpd to log the switch and switch port an IP is sent out on and also limit dhcp leases to one lease per switch port (dhcp option 82 and spawning subclasses) is a little bit more memorable (although I think only took a day or so - which also involved working on the relevant switch configs to make it work).