There's no need for a public domain name internally. If you're going to go through the trouble of changing it (which I have no personal experience with) just use something like .local.
It sounds like the availability of the public domain name is your driving force behind this idea. If you're not experiencing any issues with your current configuration, and it's not preventing you from any future changes, I'd say leave it alone. We operate a split dns environment and it works just fine. YMMV - Sean On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I have an interesting situation that has presented a need for a decision: > > I work for a medium sized company of around 250 people in three > countries - US HQ, and much smaller offices in England and Australia. > > We have the .com domain for our company, but since joining the firm > some years ago another company had the .net domain. > > I recently checked, and found that the .net domain is for sale - at > nearly $800.00. That's pretty steep, but I'm considering recommending > that we get it. > > We currently use our .com domain both internally and externally, with > a split brain DNS, but I wouldn't mind at all using the .net domain > internally. > > I believe that to fully implement the .net domain internally would > require a domain rename, and we do use Exchange 2003, with a DC and an > Exchange server in each office (2 DCs in the US office, one > virtualized.) > > So, what are your thoughts on this? How much pain would be involved in > making such a transition, and do you think it would be worth the > effort? What (aside from not needing a split-brain DNS) would be the > benefits, if any? > > Thanks, > > Kurt > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
