|
For starters…I kinda agree ;-)
Simplicity, especially when dealing with DNS and AD is my primary concern, and
I may just be playing devil’s advocate here, but if I learn something new it
was worth it! So… I do care what it’s supposed to do because
it helps me in troubleshooting issues. The RFC for DDNS specifically says that
the client must know the name of the zone for which it is trying to update a
RR, and must know the MNAME of the SOA for that zone. That said, put a sniffer
on your machine and run ipconfig /registerdns. You’ll see that the first
operation is a query for the SOA for your hostname. Besides, telling a client to use a
different DNS server than one that is authoritative for it’s own primary zone
happens all the time. Think of a remote office in a DNS environment that uses
primary/secondary configs. More likely than not those clients are going to
point to a Secondary DNS server as primary for resolution and maybe the master
as secondary. Regardless, the first operation will be a query for the SOA
record. Again, do I suggest everyone go and point
their clients to bob.com’s dns server when their clients are in the jim.bob.com
domain? No, of course not, but it would work. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Additionally, I've never seen it work well even though it may be that
it's supposed to. To be honest, I never cared what it's supposed to do,
because of the amount of confusion it causes and the likelihood that it would
break for something it is ridiculous to begin with. In my opinion, there is no sound reason to tell a client to use a
different DNS server than the one that is authoritative for it's own primary
zone for name services. That's an absurd way to do things that has no
technical merit that I have ever seen. Whenever I see a configuration
such as this, it is always either a misunderstanding or a politically motivated
decision, but never a good one. Like I said earlier, tell your client to avoid the hassle of a
complicated name resolution scheme and instead use DNS the way it was designed
to work. You get paid to make those kind of suggestions ;)
On 1/20/06, Lee,
Wook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: Yea, with a caveat. You need to be careful when mixing DNS
implementations. We've seen cases where forwarding of dynamic updates breaks
because of bugs in one or both implementations. The moral of the story is to
test, test, test, then deploy and keep your fingers crossed because there's no
accounting for production. Be ready with a contingency plan in case it all
comes crashing down around your ears. Wook From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Alex Fontana As I understand it; the client machine queries it's primary
DNS server for the SOA of the zone that matches the client's primary DNS
Suffix. It then attempts to register it's A/PTR records with primary for
that zone. That said, as long as the client's primary dns server knows
who the SOA for the client's zone is you should be ok… Yay? Nay? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Al Mulnick Give a
little more detail, can you? What I
think you're asking is, if the zone is a third party hosted zone delegated to
AD, but the users are using the third party host as their primary dns resolver,
then would they be able to update their records? Is that
about it? If that's
the case, then I would think not. Why? Because the client must talk
directly to the server that is authoritative for the zone so it can write the
record. In most
situations, I have always advocated having machines use the servers that host
their primary zone for all transactions. This has always resulted in
higher availability and lower resolution times when/if issues arise (it's hard
to keep admins from doing things, right? ;) Further,
if the client machine is an AD member, it will do better if it is able to
register it's forward and reverse information. Not for AD necessarily,
but for other applications that use DNS. If you're going to delegate the
zone to AD anyway, have the clients use the AD DNS and just simplify your
design. Al On
1/19/06, Chandra Burra < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: Hi, |
- Re: [ActiveDir] 3rd party DNS and windows DDNS updates Al Mulnick
- RE: [ActiveDir] 3rd party DNS and windows DDNS updates Alex Fontana
