Migrating to AD but have non-windows DNS...problems?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

Any DNS that supports SRV records, underscores, and dynamic updates. I ran a
Fortune 5 company off of Solaris machines running QIP DNS and DHCP.

joe

--
Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
www.joeware.net


ts wrote:
> The company is still running and NT enviornment and wants to migrate to AD.
> Currently they run DHCP and DNS services via several linux boxes.
>
> Does AD require a Windows based DNS on the network for resolution or will
> any DNS do?
>
> TIA
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

Joe can much better answer this question ( and already has ) but I believe
that BIND version 8.1.2 (???? - or close to that ) and above supports SRV
records. Making the assumption ( probably going to catch 'he' double 'l'
for it ) that if you are using Linux that you have BIND.....

--
Cary W. Shultz
Roanoke, VA 24012
Microsoft Active Directory MVP

http://www.activedirectory-win2000.com
http://www.grouppolicy-win2000.com



"ts" <[REMOVETHIS]todds@netmore.net> wrote in message
news:%23WYnBHUmFHA.2628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The company is still running and NT enviornment and wants to migrate to
> AD. Currently they run DHCP and DNS services via several linux boxes.
>
> Does AD require a Windows based DNS on the network for resolution or will
> any DNS do?
>
> TIA
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

Carey and Joe have given you the answer you sought. But I am curious as to
why a company would choose to use BIND instead of the native windows.

Note I said " instead of" not "with". For convenience, I would heavily
reccomend using your new DCS as DNS servers and using the linux boxes as
secondaries or as a split DNS system used to handle external queries.

I don't buy into the whole "BIND is more secure than MS DNS". I have seen no
evidence of this. If any one has a credible reason that could actually
happen I would be more than happy to switch my view.

--
Manny Borges
MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security)
MCT, Certified Cheese Master

The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with.
-- Marty Feldman
"ts" <[REMOVETHIS]todds@netmore.net> wrote in message
news:%23WYnBHUmFHA.2628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The company is still running and NT enviornment and wants to migrate to
> AD. Currently they run DHCP and DNS services via several linux boxes.
>
> Does AD require a Windows based DNS on the network for resolution or will
> any DNS do?
>
> TIA
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory (More info?)

It absolutely isn't more secure because Windows allows for the secure updates.
However, some companies with large deployed DNS architecture already may not
want to switch over in whole or in part to Windows DNS. You will find this in
many very large companies that have very decentralized management of AD. Done
properly, this will work fine. I implemented a very large AD in a Fortune 5
company that runs great and the AD Admins have no access to modify DNS other
than through nsupdate.


--
Joe Richards Microsoft MVP Windows Server Directory Services
www.joeware.net


Manny Borges wrote:
> Carey and Joe have given you the answer you sought. But I am curious as to
> why a company would choose to use BIND instead of the native windows.
>
> Note I said " instead of" not "with". For convenience, I would heavily
> reccomend using your new DCS as DNS servers and using the linux boxes as
> secondaries or as a split DNS system used to handle external queries.
>
> I don't buy into the whole "BIND is more secure than MS DNS". I have seen no
> evidence of this. If any one has a credible reason that could actually
> happen I would be more than happy to switch my view.
>