We've been a traditional BIND shop for many years. When we did our
AD migration we looked at possibility of changing our DNS infrastructure for the
AD requirements. We tested a few different mixes (all BIND, mix of MS and
BIND, all MS) and it just didn't make sense to fix what wasn't broke. We
stuck with BIND and it's working fine.
We don't allow the windows clients to do DDNS. Our DHCP servers
update DNS on behalf of the DHCP clients. For those devices that require
static addresses, we have a secondary system that updates DNS for those
clients. The only boxes that can do DDNS are the AD domain
controllers. This is controlled by an ACL list in BIND. There's an
article by Cricket out there that explains how to do this.
We did add new zones to our DNS hierarchy for the new AD forest. If
at some point we decide that MS DNS is needed, we can shift the AD zone from
BIND to MS and still keep our legacy BIND infrastructure.
Diane
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Juan Ibarra
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, we are planning the upgrade from NT to Win2k 2003. Currently we use Unix DNS, the question is should I keep it just make sure it supports NDR records or replace it with Microsoft DNS.
Any pros and cons?
Thanks,
Juan
