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

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:42:36 -0800

>>>Ok. Some conflicting responses.

You will always get that. I have yet to see a consensus on this and many other issues. So, it ultimately ends up being one of those “it depends” cases.

 

>>>I am aware of the island issue

Remember, the “Island issue” occurs in a multi-domain environment, which, in your case, is not applicable here. No _msdcs problem to factor in.

 

>>> Why would you point to another site as primary if there is poor connectivity?

If poor connectivity is an issue for you, then again (in this scenario), primary to another server is a good way to ameliorate the impact of the poor connectivity. “Poor connectivity”, in this case, means that there is “intermittent” connectivity, right? If the DC points to itself or to another and there is an extended outage, then you are SOL in that you can’t find anything on the other side anyway. Remember that this “to self or to another” question is specific to the DNS server ITSELF, not relevant to what it does for (or on behalf of) other clients. The configuration is only applicable to the DNS server’s ability to publish and locate records for itself. If it can NOT find the referenced DNS Server configured as PRIMARY (because of the poor connectivity), it will flag that server as being unresponsive and then go to the secondary, which is itself, in the meantime.

 

>>> The AD-integrated DNS zones should be complete at each site, no?

I say yes. But, there is nothing in the book (AFAIK) that says you can’t mix and match.

 

>>>Should the SOA and the Name Servers be the same at each site?

“The same”, meaning that the SOA on DNS1 and DNS2 should reference the same server? No. DNS1 will be DNS1.whatever and DNS2 will be DNS2.whatever because they are each authoritative for the zone and, therefore, consider themselves the “Start of Authority” for that zone.

 

HTH

Deji

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS should point to...?

 

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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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: [email protected]
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

 

Reply via email to