RE: [ActiveDir] DNS should point to...?

[Noah Eiger]

Ok. Some conflicting responses. Just so I can sort this out in my little brain:   I am aware of the island issue and my practice has been to point to another site to promote, then change it to point to itself.   Why would you point to another site as primary if there is poor connectivity?   The AD-integrated DNS zones should be complete at each site, no? Should the SOA and the Name Servers be the same at each site?   -- nme   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:03 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS should point to...?   Agreed   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 12:57 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS should point to...? In this scenario, I’d recommend Primary to another and secondary to self.   Deji   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 9:32 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS should point to...?   Hi –   I have just been brought into a situation where a client has several poorly connected (VPN and slow connections to the Internet) sites in a single W2k domain. Each site has a single DC that runs AD-integrated DNS. Previously, most of the DCs had tombstoned. Microsoft walked the in-house guy through demoting and re-promoting everything.   The question is this: where should each DC’s DNS point? I have always thought they should point to themselves and only themselves. The DNS server forwards to the Internet (as everything is poorly connected). The in-house tech said Microsoft told him to point each DC’s primary DNS to the FSMO-role holder and then to itself as secondary.   Any thoughts?   -- nme