Aging & Scavenging of W2K DNS Records

[Kevin Darcy]

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. It's the job of the DNS server to
answer queries and process updates; it's the job of the DHCP server to hand out
leases and (optionally) generate DNS updates. Now, if some particular DHCP server
(e.g. Win2K) isn't doing its job properly, how is that the DNS server
implementation's (e.g. BIND's) fault? You should be able to document instances
where the Win2K DHCP server does The Wrong Thing, create a trouble ticket, get
Microsoft to work on it. The fact that Microsoft's DNS server has some kludgey way
to cover up the inadequacies of its DHCP server is irrelevant: all over their
website and other marketing materials, Microsoft trumpets the interoperability of
their products with non-Microsoft products. So hold them to the promises they made
when they sold you the product. Get your money's worth out of that support
contract. If they take too long fixing the problem, demand a partial refund of the
purchase price. This is all just sound business practice, nothing "religious" or
"political" about it.


- Kevin

Richard Phillips wrote:

> Barry,
>         Would you say, that as long as the Server is properly secured, with only
> allowing DDNS updates to come from the DHCP servers, and not DDNS updates
> allowed from any client, then BIND has no issue as far as junk records!??
> This Utopia is always the recommended scenario, but there are many
> "POLICITAL" aspects to all of our environments, that may force us to open
> things up a bit, most of which finally refer to a W2K implementation or two.
> Even if we did delegate the _zones, there are just some companies that just
> follow MS right into the PIT!  This becomes a religious battle for me, so I
> must stop here.  I push & push for companies to use BIND, but with the clout
> that MS brings to the table, it's sometimes hard to convince anyone of
> anything else!!!
>
> Anyway.......
> I agree with what you have said regarding the DHCP server, but I've seen
> situations in which the DHCP server did do it's job, and unfortunately the
> record didn't get cycled out.   This can once again be caused by the issues
> that I've mentioned below.  I've seen it work with 3rd party IP Management
> products, but I've not seen it work properly with ISC's DHCP V.2 or MS's
> DHCP server.  I've seen the server not clear the hostname until that address
> is handed out to someone else.
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users-bounce at isc.org [mailto:bind-users-bounce at isc.org]On
> Behalf Of Barry Margolin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 3:43 PM
> To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> Subject: Re: Aging & Scavenging of W2K DNS Records
>
> In article <9s9om6$ru5 at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
> Richard Phillips  <richphillips at lucent.com> wrote:
> >
> >I realize that this is was not a specific BIND question, but it does raise
> a
> >question that is!
> >
> >Is there any option within BIND 8/9 that can be configured that would age
> >out records not updated, or used?  I know this could open up a huge CAN of
> >worms/issues!, but unless I can come up with a "VALID" reason for us to
> >switch, then I'll have my hands deep into a W2K DNS implementation.
>
> BIND never updates data automatically.  It's the job of the DHCP server to
> send updates to BIND.
>
> Also, it seems wrong for the nameserver to age out records by itself.  In
> many environments it's quite unusual to look up workstation names, since
> they act primarily as clients.  So a machine could be quite active on the
> network but inactive as far as the nameserver can tell.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
> Genuity, Woburn, MA
> *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
> Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the
> group.