Those that spring to mind: W2k3 offers scavenging - QIP does not [but then you could argue, it is not needed by design] W2k3 offers secure DDNS - QIP can, but requires Kerberos integration [again, QIP may be designed such that this is moot]
QIP is a full IP management solution and not just a DNS product. Both (QIP and w2k3 DNS) have their pros and cons - it really depends upon your requirements and whether you need/want a full IP management solution of just a DNS product. neil -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Green Sent: 28 April 2005 11:02 To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] Windows Server 2003 DNS Vs. LUCENT QIP DNS Hi all I was wondering if what (if any) benefits/advantages are over using Microsoft (2003) DNS Vs. QIP in Active Directory? Any comments or thoughts welcome :) James _________________________________________________________________ Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ ============================================================================== This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure. ============================================================================== List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
