I still havent received Melvin's original reply, so I'm just gonna reply to
this:

Are you saying you used netsh to add DNS servers, or you used netsh to
confirm that the "bad" DNS servers were via added DHCP or static?

--
Espi



On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote:

> If static works rather than DHCP, then it might not be a Group Policy
> issue.  Time to look at Kevin's suggestion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker>
> *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for
> the SMB market...*
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Melvin Backus 
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>  Yep, been there.  That's actually our temp solution, make them static
>> instead of dhcp.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> There are 10 kinds of people in the world...
>>          those who understand binary and those who don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Micheal Espinola Jr
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:26 AM
>> *To:* ntsysadm
>> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] DNS server settings getting changed
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you confirmed if the DNS addresses are static or DHCP provided?
>> This netsh should help you:
>>
>> netsh interface ip show dns
>>
>>
>>   --
>> Espi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Melvin Backus <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> OK, this has been driving us nuts for a couple of days now.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of our remote sites is seeing seemingly random PCs change their DNS
>> server settings.  They're all configured to get them from the DHCP server,
>> and it has the correct DNS servers.  All the PCs do in fact get the correct
>> settings when they get or renew an IP.  That all seems to be working as we
>> expect.  But periodically we'll see a machine change the DNS servers to
>> something else.  This causes applications to start failing because the
>> hosts they need no longer resolve.  As soon as the PC renews it's IP,
>> whether automatically or manually, everything goes back to normal and stuff
>> works again.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a short term fix (force the DNS server settings manually instead
>> of DHCP) but that doesn't explain what's going on, and since we're using
>> this same setup in 20 offices it also begs the question of why just this
>> office.
>>
>>
>>
>> Background:
>>
>> Multiple small offices with either /28 or /27 networks.  They are
>> publicly routable IPs due to requirements for a partner VPN.  The DHCP
>> server is on the Juniper SSG FW.  It servers two pools, one for PCs,
>> another for phones.  The PC subnet is publicly routable, the phone subnet
>> is a non-routable 10.x subnet with matching ranges.  (12.x.x.x/27 and
>> 10.x.x.x/27).  All DNS points to the home office.  Until recently these
>> pointed strictly to our domain DNS servers.  As part of the VPN requirement
>> we have set up a second set of DNS servers which are used to resolve hosts
>> in the partner's domains.  This is done with conditional forwarders.
>> Partner DNS traffic gets resolved by their servers, everything else goes to
>> our domain DNS or the Internet as required.
>>
>>
>>
>> This all works fine except in a single office.  Even in that office it
>> worked fine for weeks and has suddenly started this "revert" behavior.
>> When the PCs change, they go back to pointing to our domain DNS which can't
>> resolve the partner hosts.
>>
>>
>>
>> My question becomes (sorry it took so long) how do we track what is
>> actually changing the DNS settings?  I can tell when it happens fairly
>> easily, but nothing in the event logs, etc., seems to indicate what
>> triggered it, or what process is doing it.  It doesn't happen as part of a
>> DHCP operation as best we can tell.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------
>> Melvin Backus | Sr. Systems Analyst | Byers Engineering Company |
>> 404.497.1565
>>
>> Service Desk | 404-497-1599 | http://servicedesk.byers.com
>>
>> --
>> There are 10 kinds of people in the world...
>>          those who understand binary and those who don't.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to