- I will give you that NT4 did a bad job of DNS but they never meant it to be Primary and Secondary DNS Servers and was basically for Internal use only.
hmmm, then a whole lot of ISP's are (ab)using it for public DNS and it works quite ok after 3 or 4 service packs, I hear. Apparently, MS misread the market and customers' requirements yet again. It's just 1996 technology, back at BIND4, roughly. But quite solid at this date, like BIND 4.9.7.
- But.. Windows 2000 is a whole different ball game. Not only is it BIND 8 compliant but goes beyond with new RFC's that will end up in BIND. Most BIND servers are not updated to the latest version as an example
How is that relevant to anything? NT4 DNS goes back to 1996, BIND4 vintage. Where is there a pb with either situation? People use both successfully.
- - Berkeley Internet Name Domain - BIND 8.1.1 DNS Server implementation supports both SRV RRs and Dynamic Update, but it dumps core when Windows 2000-based clients send certain updates to it. 8.1.2 is the first BIND version that works reliably.
well, 8.1.2 hasn't been the current release for many months. Why bring that up? Bind 8.2.2 p5 has been current since last November. 8.3 in at release candidate, and BIND9 is due for end of June. Why denigrate an old version like BIND 8.1.2 when apparently 1000's Internet DNS use it just fine? Shall we discuss the useability of MS DNS in 1997?
- For anyone who wants to see exactly what Windows 2000
I've just helped an ISP get his W2K DNS running as master to his BIND8/NT slave (I'm not MS-certified to do so but apparently no harm done.) The two DNS's interoperated just fine. But clicking through 5 or 6 tabbed dialogs to set up one simple zone in W2K is classic MS anti-useability. Apart from the GUI, MS seems to have done a good job underneath making W2K RFC compatible and inter-operable with the Internet standards (Now, if they would just back off their proprietary Kereberos pollution). A point you invented: I said nothing about the functionality of W2K DNS.
I was talking about that sucky GUI MMC, supposedly the innovative centerpiece console for MS systems management for the new millenium. It sucked already when trying to manage 100's of virtual websites for IIS, and it still sucks for 100's or 1000's of DNS zones in W2K DNS. And it sucks even worse as a front end to SQL7 because it requires that pig multi-megabyte pig IE5 to show a few silly, useless icons. The virtual IIS sites and DNS zones are listed in creation order, not sortable, not searchable, not queryable. With MMC, you're left scrolling through a fixed, linear list of 100's or 1000's of unordered items. That many records is clearly, inescapably a database pb, a point that seems to have escaped the mantric innovators and vaunted useability experts at MS. Does MS really expect ISP's to manage 1000 or 2000 zones with MMC for W2K DNS?
As an MSCE, tell us how to manage 1000 or 2000 zones in W2K MMC DNS since many Imail admins here are faced with that very pb.
Again, I was not attacking W2K DNS, so no need to defend it. I suggest that you don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend MMC for DNS.
Len
