running w/ win2k as master and bind8 as slave (was win2k's dns)

[Jim Reid]

>>>>> "steve" == steve rader <rader at teak.wiscnet.net> writes:

    steve> Lots of folks overlay robust change management systems on
    steve> top of good ol' BIND to provide authorization control and
    steve> auditability.  I doubt anyone will every reasonably overlay
    steve> a change management system to provide authorization control
    steve> and auditability of DDNS changes.

    steve> We have revision histories, change logs, trouble tickets
    steve> and the like to associate with (ahh, well, almost =:) every
    steve> DNS change.  With DDNS, we can't continue to gather all
    steve> this change management information.

Indeed. And this is another reason why DDNS gives me the heebie-jeebies.
There are real-world business processes which critically depend on the
DNS here: "if we can't get to this SAP server, the fab line will shut
down and that costs ~$20,000 an hour". Since DDNS would presumably
bypass our existing CM procedures - and leave no audit trail - this
could have very unpleasant consequences.