On 3/10/21 8:25 AM, Michael wrote:
I think this is relevant to DNS resolution of/with domain controllers
and may depend on the AD/DC topology.
I disagree. Pure Linux in a MIT / Heimdal Kerberos environment has the
same requirements. Hence having nothing specific to do with Active
Directory, much less the AD topology.
The idea is to use the LAN address of the box as the first address
in /etc/hosts and use 127.0.0.1 as the second address in the file.
Please elaborate. Because I believe the following qualifies with your
statement:
192.0.2.1 host.example.net host
127.0.0.1 localhost
Which is effectively the same as the following:
127.0.0.1 localhost
192.0.2.1 host.example.net host
Both of which are different than the following:
192.0.2.1 host.example.net host
127.0.0.1 localhost host.example.net host
Putting host.example.net and host on the 127.0.0.1 line doesn't
accomplish anything. And it still suffers from -- what I think is --
the poor recommendation that I'm inquiring about.
If more AD/DNS servers exist in the network, then 127.0.0.1 could be
even further down the list.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2008-R2-and-2008/ff807362(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN
What does the number of DNS servers have to do with the contents of the
/etc/hosts file?
How is the contents of the /etc/hosts file related to the
/etc/resolv.conf file?
I haven't over-thought this and there may be more to it, but on a
pure linux environment I expect this would not be a requirement,
hence the handbook approach.
Apples and bowling balls. /etc/hosts is not the same concept as
/etc/resolv.conf.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
