win2k's dns
Farid Hamjavar
hamjavar at unm.edu
Mon Aug 30 22:41:17 UTC 1999
I may be reading this incorrectly, but my
understanding is that this will have a big
impact on the way dns is done on internet.
If dns domain means NT-domain under win2k and
win2k's active directory can be used without dns ...
What are some of your thoughts on this?
I am just technically curious about this.
Thanks,
Farid
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1016137,00.html
>
> Archeological Records Management Division - OCA/HPD
> Windows 2000 to provoke domain game
> By Scott Berinato, PC Week Online
> August 27, 1999 4:09 PM ET
>
>
> As if the technical preparations required to integrate Windows 2000 into the
> enterprise aren't enough, IT managers will also have to manage brewing
> political battles, such as who controls a network's domain names.
>
> Microsoft Corp. has implemented DDNS (Dynamic Domain Name System) in Windows
> 2000 in a way that makes it extremely difficult for administrators to
> integrate the operating system upgrade with Unix systems, which use the
> older, static DNS.
>
> The Windows 2000 implementation of DDNS, which links domain names and IP
> addresses, all but requires Windows administrators to take control of naming
> services. Unix administrators, who have traditionally overseen DNS in mixed
> Unix/Windows NT environments, are fighting to keep control.
>
> Windows NT 4.0, like Unix, uses static DNS.
>
> Who's king?
>
> It's a new variation on the old Windows vs. Unix theme, and judging by its
> effect on major Windows 2000 beta sites, the issue will only increase in
> importance once the operating system ships in October.
>
> "We have a big-time political crisis over who's kingpin," said the manager
> of IT operations at a major aerospace company that is testing Windows 2000.
> For years, Unix and then Linux ran the company's firewall and DNS services.
>
> "A strategic decision to adopt Windows 2000 means you adopt it for DNS,"
> said the IT manager, who asked for anonymity. "Now we have Unix programmers
> losing control, and they're angry. They perceive this as a threat to their
> job."
>
> To use Windows 2000, a site also will likely have to use DDNS because it is
> extremely difficult to integrate the operating system and its Active
> Directory into a network using static DNS.
>
> "I haven't seen anyone try to deploy Windows 2000 without DDNS because that
> would probably mean trying to deploy Windows 2000 without Active Directory,"
> said John Kretz, a systems integrator at Enlightened Point Consulting Group,
> in Phoenix.
>
> DDNS the way to go?
>
> Not everyone is blaming Microsoft for what is sure to divide many
> administrators at mixed Unix and Windows sites. The aerospace company's IT
> manager said developers of Unix and Linux operating systems should adopt the
> DDNS standard because it has inherent advantages.
>
> For example, DDNS automatically updates client IP addresses when Dynamic
> Host Configuration Protocol changes them. With static DNS, IT managers must
> make those changes manually. For roving users, DDNS maps IP addresses to
> machine names.
>
> Unix vendors, by and large, are working to adopt DDNS. Novell's NetWare 5.0
> supports third-party implementations of DDNS but also supports existing DNS
> infrastructures passively.
>
> Microsoft officials say Windows 2000 users will be able to set up DNS zones
> to maintain their old DNS while applying DDNS to new servers entering the
> network.
>
> While DDNS is not absolutely required, officials from the Redmond, Wash.,
> company maintain it is the preferred naming system. Further, many observers
> believe it will be impractical to deploy Windows 2000 under a static DNS
> structure already in place. For many customers, there's the rub.
>
> "If Windows 2000 can't use what we use for DNS already, that will be a
> problem," said the network administrator at a major financial institution
> that has Unix machines running static DNS. "The infrastructure group doesn't
> want to have DNS services dictated to us by the groups choosing operating
> systems."
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the bind-users
mailing list