DNS

[Bond, Darryl]

I wonder if we're heading down a path of confusion by adding yet another
ltsp-* service name.  Reportedly dnsmasq with a proper config file can
replace dhcpd, tftpd and named all in a single service.  This at least
sounds like it would be less confusing for the long-term.

OTOH if we did do that, we can't migrate existing F-9 users during the
release.  Or do we just not have F-9 production users yet so we
shouldn't worry about this?

Do we keep dhcpd, tftpd and named as default?
dnsmasq as default?
Do we let users choose?

The more completely redundant options the more confusing this gets. =(

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com

I think the users should be able to choose. I am not familiar with the dnsmasq method, but I suspect that it would not be able to handle more complex configurations.

The dhcpd can handle controls like if {} which I use a lot.

That said, a single daemon that handles simple situations is also a very good thing.

Regards
Darryl


The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee and may contain legally privileged, personal, sensitive or confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, and have received this email, any transmission, distribution, downloading, printing or photocopying of the contents of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. Any legal privilege or confidentiality attached to this message and attachments is not waived, lost or destroyed by reason of delivery to any person other than intended addressee. If you have received this message and are not the intended addressee you should notify the sender by return email and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Unless expressly attributed, the views expressed in this email do not necessarily represent the views of the company.