RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

[Gil Kirkpatrick]

Title: Message

Not true. The site will remain, and there will be no DCs in the site. The DCs in the nearest site will cover the DC-less site by publishing additional SRV records in DNS.

 

-gil

Gil Kirkpatrick
CTO, NetPro
"To fly, flip away backhanded. Flat flip flies straight. Tilted flip curves. Experiment!"

---

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adams, Kenneth W (Ken)
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 5:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

My understanding of sites is that each site must have at least one DC.  If my understanding is correct, your planned action to decomm the Site B DC would lead to the removal of Site B and its incorporation into Site A.  As long as the computers in Site B have the proper DNS server addresses, you should have no problem (note the operative word 'should').

 

Ken Adams, MCSE 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:04 AM
To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org'
Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

I am about to investigate and test DNS site coverage and would like to seek the views and opinions of others.

Scenario:
W2k DCs (SP3)
Multiple domains - all w2k native
Location1 has 2 buildings, currently each building being represented by a separate site. Let's call them siteA and siteB.

Currently, each of these 2 sites has a DC installed locally.
SiteB has a site link with siteA (cost 10)
SiteB has a site link to siteC [at some other location] (cost 100)

Proposal and requirements:
Decomm the DC in siteB and ensure that the DC in siteA provides DNS coverage to users in siteB [I won't explain my reasoning for the decomm - that would detract from my main point :) ]

Questions:
Will the DC in siteA need to be configured such that it auto covers DNS wrt siteB (registry change)?
Or
Will that DC in siteA automatically cover for siteB in DNS, given that siteA has the lowest cost link to siteB?

I had always assumed the latter to be true, but this view has been challenged and the former was suggested as necessary, instead :)

Any offers?

Thanks,
neil

Neil Ruston - MVP dir services

==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================