Unbound to DNSMasq

[gspannu]

Constructive criticism or suggestions for improvements are not bad at all. I do this all the time and also did it on this topic, because I think that the DHCP options could be made more user-friendly. The amount of comments about DNSmasq seems logical to me, because there are some areas that could be improved, as the Github issues section also shows.

It is more the constant whining about how bad this and generally showing an egoistic attitude (I want to have it right now) won't help.

I think some people should start by understanding how things like Proxmox and OpnSense work: If you want great software for free, you have to put in some effort, like accepting to use the less proven und in some respects "immature" community version.

If you want to have it another way, get ready to pay for the business version and then you may start complaining, preferably directly to the manufacturer.

And as mentioned: With this specific topic, there is even less reason to complain, because DNS and DHCP still works with ISC DHCP and Unbound.

👍

[keeka]

I'm not going to run two DNS services just to be able to resolve internal host names. This whole deprecation of ISC has been a mess. ISC+Unbound is exceedingly simple and functional, Kea and dnsmasq are both half-baked.

I felt the same until I read through the updated docs. DNSmasq is primarily being introduced for dhcpd. Using it also for local name resolution (via an unbound forwarding) means no unbound restarts on updated leases. You retain a recursive resolver and still only have two daemons running in order to provide DNS/DHCP. If it all works as described in the docs, I will be more than happy to switch since I was fond of dnsmasq from previous experience.

[kasper93]

I'm not going to run two DNS services just to be able to resolve internal host names. This whole deprecation of ISC has been a mess. ISC+Unbound is exceedingly simple and functional, Kea and dnsmasq are both half-baked.

I felt the same until I read through the updated docs. DNSmasq is primarily being introduced for dhcpd. Using it also for local name resolution (via an unbound forwarding) means no unbound restarts on updated leases. You retain a recursive resolver and still only have two daemons running in order to provide DNS/DHCP. If it all works as described in the docs, I will be more than happy to switch since I was fond of dnsmasq from previous experience.

In theory it looks ok, but unfortunately in practice it is not stable currently. As reported in the other thread.

[julsssark]

I just switched over from Kea v4 to DNSmasq for DHCP. Unbound is pointed to DNSmasq for internal lookups and it is working fine in my configuration (some vlans, ip v4 only and AdGuard->Unbound for DNS.