QIP?

[McNutt, Justin M.]

The only trouble we've had with QIP is their lackluster support for Linux.
That said, we've been using QIP on NT since version 3.x and are pretty
pleased with it.  You have your choice of several DNS daemons (we stuck with
BIND), and as someone else pointed out, it ties together DHCP management,
reports, etc. etc.  It's an IP management tool, not just a pretty
configurator.

It has its quirks, to be sure, but the database back end has quite a few
advantages once you start making use of the stock query scripts that come
with it.

--J

> -----Original Message-----
> From: England, Robert (Robert)
> [mailto:england at northamerica.exchange.agere.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:21 PM
> To: 'franks at plk.af.mil'; comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> Subject: RE: QIP?
> 
> 
> QIP version 6.0 will ship with BIND 9.x and will have tighter 
> integration
> with Windows 2000 Active Directory (DNS).
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: franks at plk.af.mil [mailto:franks at plk.af.mil]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:07 PM
> > To: comp-protocols-dns-bind at moderators.isc.org
> > Subject: QIP?
> > 
> > 
> > Our DNS was moved from BIND to a product referred to as "QIP".
> > A websearch yields Lucent's VitalQIP as a DNS, DHCP, etc. and
> > much hyperbole from the vendor.
> > 
> > What is the opinion of the sages in this ng of this product?  How
> > does it compare with BIND?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > ed
> 
> 
>