D
David Adner
I've read Win2000's DNS is a psuedo-BIND 9, but does anyone know what it
really is? Like, 8.2.4 (or whatever) with some of 9's features?
really is? Like, 8.2.4 (or whatever) with some of 9's features?
David Adner said:I've read Win2000's DNS is a psuedo-BIND 9, but does anyone know what
it really is? Like, 8.2.4 (or whatever) with some of 9's features?
David Adner said:I know the DNS whitepaper has a list of RFC and draft RFC's that they
incorporated. I don't know if that list of complete or just a subset.
Someone wants to know the BIND equivalency so he can know how certain
features should behave. I guess I'll give him the list of RFC's and
let
him figure it out on his own.
I remember someone saying close to 4.98?
Just joking... I'm not sure.
There are some features that BIND supports that MS DNS does not,
such as "views", and that's been around from the earlier versions of BIND.
Michael Snyder said:Just to be clear, the DNS server included in Win2k is not BIND.
There are some features that BIND has that Windows does not, and
vice-versa. BIND and Windows DNS each have features that go beyond
RFC standards in different ways.
Recent versions of each should be sufficiently interoperable in most
circumstances.
Personally, I think that Windows has a better management tool for DNS
than BIND does, but then I am biased.
NT Canuck said:Originally not even that high...
but MS has their_own DNS teams and focus area.
Caution...
some of this is more about networking and sockets than dns per se.
(both socket code and DNS have Berkeley.edu research roots)
Microsoft does have a proprietary socket ability in Win2k (iirc)
and I'm not sure if in WinNT4 or earlier...there is a "switch" present
in registry for that but MS version is_not universally compatible
so many sites/servers will not be accessible if it's enabled. Only
one or the other socket code can be used...and the default (enabled)
is for compatibility with berkeley sockets.
Archived notes can be found..(hunt keywords on your own)
http://www.filelibrary.com/find.shtml3
People also seem to confuse currently popular isc-bind implementations
with being BIND "creators"...Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon is not an
ISC invention... isc.org has done some wonderful derivative work but
is a
seperate organization/entity from Berkeley.
Except (possibly) for djbdns ( http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html ) all the
DNS in popular (96%) use are related directly or indirectly to the
original (or a later derivative) of the BIND stucture or code.
hint...afaik...Views were introduced in ISC-BIND 9.x series.
MS DNS supports AD properly...and personally I think the MS DNS
<currently> is best used for "AD enabled" LAN's (intranet) but MS
does not currently have as strong options for security when jumping
into public DNS (internet) as could_be accomplished.
Mind you...all in all...some choice and parellel works are a good
thing...
or we could all end up toasted if some exploit hit and we had no
options.
There were several attempts at various DNS (host file data-bases
really)
server and clients over the years...some might have found stronger use
if they got a footing or support but seemed to dissolve due to the
fast
paced evolutionary jungle the Internet and operating systems adopted.
On horizon...
Is a techically possible structure for resolving domains/ip's that is
more peer-to-peer based that appears not to be vulneable to many
current DNS system/hierarchy foibles.
Not surprising...Berkeley.edu has a part in this episode also!
<draw your own conclusions if interested>
Keywords...
DHT, SSL, Oceanshore
Links...
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~ravenben/tapestry/
http://research.microsoft.com/~antr/Pastry/
http://www.planet-lab.org/
David Adner said:I've read Win2000's DNS is a psuedo-BIND 9, but does anyone know what
it really is? Like, 8.2.4 (or whatever) with some of 9's features?
As several people said, for an MS or Active Directory network, you
really cannot beat Microsoft DNS on Win2003 (Win2000 is just Ok
in comparison now.)
Personally I prefer Win2003 DNS but use a BIND-9 caching only DNS
server on my Internet gateway since it will give me some control
MS-DNS will not.
Also note, I strongly recommend that most people keep their PUBLIC DNS
at the Registrar (e.g., Register.Com)
Personally, I think that Windows has a better management tool for DNS
than BIND does, but then I am biased.
(And did they implement the delayed responsed in the 2003 DHCP server?)
What does BIND 9 do that 2003 lacks? I know that it supports a number of
experimental record types that 2000 lacks.
Nit, not the registrar, but one's hosting service. There are also low-cost
David Adner said:There's a dig utility for 2000's DNS. I forget where I downloaded it,
but I know it's around. I don't know how it compares to what you've
seen, though.
Michael Snyder said:I would love to hear any comments, complaints, missing features, or other
improvements that anyone would like to see in the DNS Manager snapin.
Either in a newsgroup post, or feel free to remove the online from my email
address and send directly to me.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.