Jul. 16, 2025 16:15:23 Tyler Amick <[email protected]>:

> On 7/12/25 6:28 PM, Nicholas Niro wrote:
>
>> The alternative would be to use a much bulkier dns server like unbound and
>> maybe even ISC bind. But to be honest, I'd so much rather
>> use an easy to use static dns server that only use a simple list for this
>> purpose, exactly like what busybox dnsd provides.
> Saw your post on the busybox list, and it seems like you're going for 
> something very similar to what I've done.
>
> Have you tried dnsmasq? It's fairly lightweight and widely used in the 
> embedded space. It should do exactly what you want out-of-the-box. If you use 
> it as your DHCP server it will even update the records automatically.
>
> I have a quite similar site-to-site configuration w/ a wireguard tunnel, and 
> I did this by configuring a dnsmasq recursive resolver/DHCP server at each 
> site with conditional upstream servers. See this dnsmasq.conf snippet:
>
> ```
> log-queries
> expand-hosts        # Expand domains (test -> test.site1.internal)
> no-resolv       # Don't use resolv.conf
> local=/site1.internal/  # Resolve *.site1.internal locally
>
> interface=<interface-name>  # Interface to bind to
>
> # Enable DHCP (optional)
> dhcp-range=<range-start>,<range-end>,<lease-time>
>
> # Catch queries for other sites and send them where they need to be
> server=/site2.internal/<site2-resolver-ip>
> server=/site3.internal/<site3-resolver-ip>
> ...etc...
>
> # Resolve everything else the usual way
> server=<upstream-dns-1>
> server=<upstream-dns-2>
> ```
>
> This snippet should do roughly what you want, and static entries for 
> wireguard interface IPs can be added in the hosts file or address directives 
> in dnsmasq.conf
>
> Man page: https://thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/dnsmasq-man.html
>
> Regards,
> --
> Tyler Amick
> PGP Fingerprint: 8EAC 2FB2 21A3 98DE 7A19 EE0E 63BF 906B 9FCB B6F1
> PGP Public Key: 
> https://keys.openpgp.org/vks/v1/by-fingerprint/8EAC2FB221A398DE7A19EE0E63BF906B9FCBB6F1

This is quite an interesting alternative indeed. But I can't help but wonder : 
If busybox dnsd worked correctly, would you have opted to use it instead?
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to