|
Tom, The Networks guys do that in my company,
too. If all they want is “control,” make them DNS or DHCP operators
in AD. Dynamically registering DHCP clients is such an advantage I wouldn’t
give it up if I could avoid it. AL Al Maurer From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern Thanks. I think it has something to do with the "Network Group"
wanting to have more control and central management over "Network
Services" while the "Windows Group" manages "Windows"
related stuff. They seem to make an artifical distinction(to me) between
"Windows" stuff and "Network Infra" stuff. Also, they probably will make the argument that having this centrally
managed in this manner will be more secure and managable. In addition, they wrongly think that because Bluecat has an embedded
linux kernel and thus fewer "moving parts", its somehow more secure. At least thats my interpetation. To counter, I think DHCP is so intergrated with DDNS and thus AD, that
you shouldn't make that seperation in this case. Also, I don't think less moving parts makes something automatically
more secure. But thats just my uninformed opinion. Any other more informed ideas would be great. Thanks again On 12/19/05, Al
Mulnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: I can honestly second that suggestion as the best advice. There
are few technical reasons to make somebody want to purchase a third party DHCP
server. I've seen some organizations spend big money (better than .5 million
USD) on DNS solutions for no relevant technical reason, so I would not be
surprised to see somebody want a third party DHCP solution for similar
reasons. There are a few features that thirdparty DHCP vendors can implement
that might be required by your company. I'd be surprised though to hear
that your company suddenly has that set of requirements. Other reasons not to change? Added complexity that translate into
added return to service times in the event of outages. Often solutions
like this come with added learning and added processes that you otherwise
wouldn't need/want. Lots of hidden costs in that sense. hope this helps, al On 12/19/05, Coleman,
Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: Ask your company what problem they hope to
solve, or what added functionality they hope to get, by going with a 3rd party
product. Then ask them if that problem/functionality is worth the purchase and
implementation cost. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Tom Kern My company wants to use 3rd party dhcp product like Bluecat's Adonis
500 or 1000 instead of Windows DHCP. Is there really any compelling reason to dump or not dump Windows DHCP? We are running a Win2k3 Forest FFL Win2k3 with all our clients Win2k
pro at the moment and Exchange 2k3. We do have a lot of Solaris servers running Sybase and other
backend network services as well. I'm just wondering why the pros or cons are of moving away from Windows
DHCP in this area. I think the pros of WIN DHCP is its free and the abilty to prevent
rouge DHCP servers(if they're running win2k and above, of course). I think most DHCP servers can do DDNS these days on behalf of the
client so that's probably not an issue. Most can also give clients additionally info in the scope options like
dns ip,domain name,etc. So, i was wondering if i'm missing anything. Also, has anyone used Bluecat's DHCP product in their network? Thanks alot
|
