On 2/4/08, AJ Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I apologize for not following the bug, but I asked a related question last > week (or the week before). > > Why not use dnsmasq to do the DHCP service as well as its DNS services? I > have it running stand-alone for years, very stable and efficient (as do many > others out there -- and it's built into some firmware's for soho > hardware-routers)??? > > Isn't part of building a good firewall/security appliance minimizing the > number of packages for efficiency and security? (i.e. one less package to > maintain is one less possible security and maintenance issue to appear) > > -AJ >
I've wondered the same thing. I'm not an expert in either dnsmasq or ISC dhcpd, so I don't know the answer to that. Maybe Endian can answer that question? Why are we not using the dhcpd functionality of dnsmasq? What extra functionality does ISC give efw that would be lost if the switch was made? I made the hack because I was tired of not having local network resolution. :) Jae ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Efw-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/efw-user
