Different resolver DNS option by client

Hello
I use pihole with m’y unbound resolver for my own requests

But i would using pihole whith open dns resolver for my childrens requests

Is it possible to ask to pihole using différent resolver depending ip source about client request ??

We cannot let Pi-hole send requests to different forward destinations depending on the client’s IP address. What can be done is specifying to which forward destination a specific domain is being sent to (if you expect some domains only be answerable by specific, maybe non-public, servers), but that’s all. An alternative hack could be to use Pi-hole as the DHCP server and to have it set different DNS servers for specific clients so that the clients don’t even ask your Pi-hole.

However, can you specify what the original problem is? Why shouldn’t your children use your unbound instance?

For the moment i have install 2 pi hole for my needs

Me needs are

For my equipements i want ad Block AND use my unbound resolver
So i have configured pi hole requesting my unbound pfsense

For other equipments used by childrens
I want ad Block AND Web filtering
So i have configured an other pi hole requesting on open dns whith option dns filtering

I would prefer have only one pi hole for the 2 usage

I think your two Pi-Hole solution is better than changing the software. For most users who want to make a kid-friendly sub-network, they would typically want to load a different subset of block lists as well (block adult content, perhaps some social media sites, etc.), so to do this in software would be more than just using a different DNS server per client.

Using a separate Pi-Hole allows you to do that, and then you can use a filtered upstream DNS server for that Pi to further filter content. This is a more powerful and tailorable solution.

I'd really like to see this feauture as well. I really liked Pi-Hole, but for me it was a reason to move over to another solution which has such feature. I used a macvlan setup in Docker to run 2 Pi-Hole instances simultaneously, but then you have to maintain both and both are using resources. Imho, this would fit great in the new 5.0 release, which has group configuration possibilities.