SRV records in BIND?

[Levon Esibov]

>Microsoft's TSIG-GSS UPDATE method of inserting SRV RR's is not publically
>documented and has not been implemented outside of Win2K.

The Windows 2000 Domain Controllers use standard (as described in RFC 2136)
dynamic update messages for registration of SRV records. In addition to
this, they may use GSS-TSIG UPDATE algorithm to add RRs (not only SRV) to
the DNS servers that also support GSS-TSIG UPDATE algorithm (e.g. Windows
2000 DNS server). I'd like to emphasize that in order to support SRV RRs
dynamic registration initiated by Windows 2000 Domain Controllers, the DNS
servers are NOT required to support GSS-TSIG.

We have tested and confirmed that BIND 8.1.2. provides sufficient support
for Windows 2000 Active Directory.

BTW: TSIG-GSS UPDATE method is documented in "GSS Algorithm for TSIG
(GSS-TSIG)" Internet draft
(http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-skwan-gss-tsig-03.txt).

Thanks,
Levon.



-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:vixie at mibh.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 12:19 PM
To: bind-users at isc.org
Subject: Re: SRV records in BIND?


SRV RR's are supported by BIND.

Microsoft's TSIG-GSS UPDATE method of inserting SRV RR's is not publically
documented and has not been implemented outside of Win2K.

Microsoft's LDAP-ADS zone transfer method of supporting "multiple masters"
is not publically documented and has not been implemented outside of Win2K.

Microsoft calls this their "embrace and extend" strategy.

re:

jrichard at mda.ca (Jeffery Richards [2667]) writes:

> We're just starting to worry about the needs of Windows 2000 and I was
> wondering if anyone can advise me if the current version of Unix BIND
> supports the SRV records that apparently Windows needs?  We'd be
> wanting to run it under Solaris.  We'd like to maintain our current
> method of running DNS on Unix and not have to breakdown and move DNS to
> running under Windows.
> 
> Can anyone let me know if the necessary support is there?

-- 
Paul Vixie <vixie at mibh.net>

"I sorta lean towards different both." --asp