Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 2000 to provoke domain game

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the I-smell-trouble dept.

According to this article found on PC Week, Mircosoft Windows 2000 implements DDNS (Dynamic Domain Name System) in a way that makes it extremely difficult for administrators to integrate the operating system upgrade with Unix systems, which use the older, static DNS. I would like to ask if someone here could explain what is the difference between Static DNS and Dynamic DNS, and why it's not implement almost at all unices, including Linux. I smell a fight here between Unix Admins and NT/2000 Admins in some corporates. Am I wrong?

1 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. DDNS vs. Static DNS by Jobe_br · · Score: 5

    DDNS is indeed implemented in the Unices - w/o a problem. The current version of Bind (8) supports DDNS and the development version of DHCP supports the DDNS updates.

    The difference in the two (Dynamic/Static) is that, as everyone knows, static DNS requires you to know the IP address of the domain name you're recording. In DDNS, the client requests an IP address from a DHCP server, then, as long as the DHCP server is configured to 'know' the client, it recognizes which client is requesting the IP (based on MAC addressing) and informs the DNS server that it is giving a certain IP address to a client for a particular domain name, and the DNS server accepts the information and adjusts its lookup tables accordingly.

    I've implemented this in Linux w/o a problem whatsoever - and I know of a school that has implemented it in a Solaris environment.

    Its been out there for a LONG time, btw - by that I mean at least 3 yrs. It wasn't pretty, at times, 3 yrs ago - but it was there. Now, it is a very well integrated solution.

    Its nice to be able to connect w/ a laptop anywhere on a 100+ subnet network and get the same domain name to resolve everytime :).

    Btw - first? :-)

    Brice