Re: small dns daemon / forwarder ?
Andrew Hicox schrieb:
> Hello everyone:
>
> I have a number of machines behind a NAT firewall. Because I don't like
> to manage hosts files on all of the machines, I usually set up bind on
> my Ultra-1 running debian. BIND has a zone file for my domain, and
> reverse DNS info for each of my internal IP's, so it provides 'internal'
> DNS on my network as well as caching and forwarding DNS requests outside
> my domain.
>
> The problem is that BIND is a beast, and using it in this manner is like
> trying to swat a fly with an ICBM. It's using a lot of CPU, and it's a
> pain in the butt to configure. On top of that, and what's really
> prompted my to investigate BIND alternatives, is that named just goes
> absolutely nuts when it can't find a root server, and that happens from
> time to time from my DSL line. When it can't talk to a root server,
> named goes all cornolio and logs that fact like crazy, soaks the CPU on
> the machine and fills up /var in like 20 minutes flat. (this in spite of
> having category lame-servers { null; }; in named.conf)
>
> So, there has to be something better out there to use for 'internal'
> DNS. All this thing needs to do is resolve hostnames on my domain to
> internal addresses (www.hicox.com = 192.168.blah.blah), and provide
> reverse lookup for internal ip addresses (192.168.blah.blah =
> laptop.hicox.com, etc.), and forward DNS requests to my ISP's DNS server
> for things not on my domain (yahoo.com ... get ip from ISP's DNS, relay
> it back to requester).
>
> dnsmasq looked promising, but it was tied fairly tightly with dhcpd,
> which is not something I'm looking to run, configuration looked far from
> intuitive as well.
>
> I can't imagine I'm the first guy in the history of the world to have
> run across this problem. Does anyone know of a good lightweight dns
> daemon that can do what I'm looking for?
>
> thanks,
>
> -Andrew
Have a look at djbdns
<http://packages.debian.org/testing/net/djbdns-installer>
It's fast, secure and easy to configure.
Reply to: