I've been studying DNS and the pros/cons of BIND vs AD. One source says the following:

With BIND, "if the primary DNS server goes down, the secondary server can resolve FQDNs, but can't add any new records. Nothing can be updated until the primary DNS server comes back up. In an Active Directory-integrated zone, all of the domain controllers (also DNS servers) are equal and the whole DNS system is not reliant on a single DNS server." Also, "Windows DHCP servers will automatically update all the client information in the Active Directory-integrated zone. If a computer gets a DHCP lease, the DHCP server (or, in the latest versions of Windows, the client itself) tells the DNS server that it has new DNS information. Non-Windows systems can only do this using Windows clients (like Samba)."

Is this a significant disadvantage to BIND?

BIND vs AD is comparing Apples to Oranges

Bind vs MS DNS Server (a component of AD) is closer.

For most people, BIND provides the "Yellow Pages" of public facing services, and AD provides the Internal Corp Directory (and is NOT accessible to unknown outsiders).

Since Public Facing services are rarely moved, having a Dynamic Directory (which is what AD is - hence the term "active" directory), plain old DNS works just fine for them.

Inside the Firewall (or corporate fabric spanning several domains), things are much more dynamic, and AD blows away BIND (or BIND and DHCP).

We've always ran both. AD inside, BIND outside.

vonskippy,

That was helpful, thanks.