> My idea was to use something
> more lightweight than bind, since from a featureset point of view, bind
> would be really way too big for our purpose, since we basically need
> forwarding servers only.
Have you looked at Unbound (unbound.net) ?
-JP
__
Hey Simon,
thanks for your quick reply. This doesn't sound as many people would use
dnsmasq in larger environments, does it? I don't think we can really
afford to play around with this too much. My idea was to use something
more lightweight than bind, since from a featureset point of view, bind
wo
On 16/07/12 17:32, Thorsten Peter wrote:
Hey folks,
we are planning to test dnsmasq as a dns forwarder only, no dhcp and no
caching involved. Caching might play a role later though.
We are talking a internal, private network consiting of ~ 200 servers
(Apache/JBoss mainly). Plan would be to use
Hey folks,
we are planning to test dnsmasq as a dns forwarder only, no dhcp and no
caching involved. Caching might play a role later though.
We are talking a internal, private network consiting of ~ 200 servers
(Apache/JBoss mainly). Plan would be to use 4 servers as dnsmasq
forwarders, to our ups
