zdnet.com
Windows 2000 to provoke domain game
By Scott Berinato, PC Week Online
August 27, 1999 4:09 PM ET
As if the technical preparations required to integrate Windows 2000 into the enterprise aren't enough, IT managers will also have to manage brewing political battles, such as who controls a network's domain names.
Microsoft Corp. has implemented DDNS (Dynamic Domain Name System) in Windows 2000 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.
The Windows 2000 implementation of DDNS, which links domain names and IP addresses, all but requires Windows administrators to take control of naming services. Unix administrators, who have traditionally overseen DNS in mixed Unix/Windows NT environments, are fighting to keep control. Windows NT 4.0, like Unix, uses static DNS.
Who's king?
It's a new variation on the old Windows vs. Unix theme, and judging by its effect on major Windows 2000 beta sites, the issue will only increase in importance once the operating system ships in October.
"We have a big-time political crisis over who's kingpin," said the manager of IT operations at a major aerospace company that is testing Windows 2000. For years, Unix and then Linux ran the company's firewall and DNS services.
"A strategic decision to adopt Windows 2000 means you adopt it for DNS," said the IT manager, who asked for anonymity. "Now we have Unix programmers losing control, and they're angry. They perceive this as a threat to their job."
To use Windows 2000, a site also will likely have to use DDNS because it is extremely difficult to integrate the operating system and its Active Directory into a network using static DNS.
"I haven't seen anyone try to deploy Windows 2000 without DDNS because that would probably mean trying to deploy Windows 2000 without Active Directory," said John Kretz, a systems integrator at Enlightened Point Consulting Group, in Phoenix.
DDNS the way to go?
Not everyone is blaming Microsoft for what is sure to divide many administrators at mixed Unix and Windows sites. The aerospace company's IT manager said developers of Unix and Linux operating systems should adopt the DDNS standard because it has inherent advantages.
For example, DDNS automatically updates client IP addresses when Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol changes them. With static DNS, IT managers must make those changes manually. For roving users, DDNS maps IP addresses to machine names.
Unix vendors, by and large, are working to adopt DDNS. Novell's NetWare 5.0 supports third-party implementations of DDNS but also supports existing DNS infrastructures passively.
Microsoft officials say Windows 2000 users will be able to set up DNS zones to maintain their old DNS while applying DDNS to new servers entering the network.
While DDNS is not absolutely required, officials from the Redmond, Wash., company maintain it is the preferred naming system. Further, many observers believe it will be impractical to deploy Windows 2000 under a static DNS structure already in place. For many customers, there's the rub.
"If Windows 2000 can't use what we use for DNS already, that will be a problem," said the network administrator at a major financial institution that has Unix machines running static DNS. "The infrastructure group doesn't want to have DNS services dictated to us by the groups choosing operating systems." |
