This is very similar to what we did. But, we've got a book (literally - not a notebook - a 200 page BOOK) over in Legal with all of our 'pre-purchased' domain names. Rarely, do we have to go out and get a new one - except for those instances when a client wants us to have a specific "look and feel" for their contract. And, we can usually provide those, too.
We use probably (right now - it could change today) 60 outward namespaces. But, we currently have 4 internal namespaces that support AD - all registered, but dissimilar from the outside namespace. Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT Microsoft MVP - Active Directory Associate Expert Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 6:51 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Split Brain DNS and AD Namespace > > > Actually, I don't think contiguous namespace is all that important. > > We did discontiguous namespaces internally, since we also do > some other DNS tricks with subzones for specific locations > for non-AD aware machines. > > We purchased a matching pair of .net and .com domains, and > used the .net for an empty root, while using the .com for the > 'production' single domain. > > The problem with empty roots and contiguous namespaces is > that your DNS names for servers get long: > server.ad.domain.com > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:45 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Split Brain DNS and AD Namespace > > > > > > > > The split DNS with contiguous namespace is suitable and > preferable for > > most installations. > > > > You might actually ask 'is there a compelling reason NOT to > > use the same > > namespace'. > > > > (See the Getronics.com Active Directory case study at > > microsoft.com for > > an example) > > > > William > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Nevan McAlynn > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:21 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > When using the split brain DNS model, securing the internal > > DNS servers, > > are there any compelling reasons not to use the same > top-level domain > > name for the Active Directory? > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
