Surfer,
Apologies for the delay.
AD (and W2K-->W2K communication) is completely reliant on DNS name
resolution as that is it's primary method.
In theory you can have an AD name that is different then the DNS name.
This situation is called a disjoint namespace. This cannot be done through
the Dcpromo wizard as both names are automatically made the same. This
situation can occur during an NT4 upgrade though. This is outlined in KB
262376.
The majority of the NT4 disjoint namespace issues result in single label
DNS namespaces. In XP and W2K SP4 we have a problem registering these
single label namespaces. This is outlined in KB article 300684:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=300684.
The main problem with disjoint namespaces is that it requires you to manage
two separate forward lookup zones within DNS. For instance the AD name is
abc.com while the DNS suffix name is xyz.com. You will be required to have
both fwd lookup zones in DNS as the A and PTR record for a DC will register
in xyz.com while all AD related records (SRV, cname, etc) will register
within abc.com. In turn this can cause unecessary complications.
Hope that helps.
blim
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
--------------------
| >From: (e-mail address removed) (Surfer)
| >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >Subject: Re: AD and DNS domains & dependencies
| >Date: 9 Dec 2003 12:55:45 -0800
| >Organization:
http://groups.google.com
| >Lines: 161
| >Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
| >References: <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
| >NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.109.159.59
| >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
| >X-Trace: posting.google.com 1071003345 6627 127.0.0.1 (9 Dec 2003
20:55:45 GMT)
| >X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
| >NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:55:45 +0000 (UTC)
| >Path:
cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl!cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.su
l.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!priap
us.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.v
isi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!no
t-for-mail
| >Xref: cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:58799
| >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >
| >Blim,
| >Nope, doesn't help - at least not completely.
| >
| >Blim,
| >Thanks for pointing me to the KB article (254680). However, this
| >is entirely consistant with my other readings. Howeve, it does not
| >resolve my earlier confusion which I am hoping you (or someone)
| >can clarify.
| >
| >The KB article in part reads,
| > "It is critical that the design of the DNS namespace
| > be created with Active Directory in mind and that the
| > namespace that exists on the Internet not conflict
| > with an organization's internal namespace...."
| >
| >Unfortunately, this still leaves open my earlier question
| >to you(!), which is does having AD domain names which differ
| >from DNS domain names create either technical or administrative
| >issues? IOW, how does AD itself (as oposed to users)use DNS
| >names, at a technical or adminsistrative level?
| >
| >Regards,
| >
| >
| >
| >
[email protected] (Ben [MSFT]) wrote in message
| >> Surfer,
| >>
| >> In regards to AD namespaces it is always recommended that your
internal AD
| >> namespace does not conflict with your external DNS namespace.
| >>
| >> KB article 254680 may help answer these quesitons:
| >>
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=254680
| >>
| >> Let me know if that helps. Tks.
| >> blim
| >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
| >> --------------------
| >> | >From: (e-mail address removed) (Surfer)
| >> | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >> | >Subject: Re: AD and DNS domains & dependencies
| >> | >Date: 4 Dec 2003 14:12:18 -0800
| >> | >Organization:
http://groups.google.com
| >> | >Lines: 85
| >> | >Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
| >> | >References: <
[email protected]>
<
[email protected]>
| >> | >NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.109.159.59
| >> | >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| >> | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
| >> | >X-Trace: posting.google.com 1070575938 27562 127.0.0.1 (4 Dec 2003
22:12:18 GMT)
| >> | >X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
| >> | >NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:12:18 +0000 (UTC)
| >> | >Path:
| >>
cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl!cpmsftngxa10.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA05.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08
| >>
.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!n
| >>
ews.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!petbe.visi.com!news-out.visi.com
| >>
!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.goog
| >> le.com!not-for-mail
| >> | >Xref: cpmsftngxa07.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:58253
| >> | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >> | >
| >> | >Blim,
| >> | >Thanks. As a follow up, the literature encourages AD
| >> | >domain names which are the same as DNS domain names. Does
| >> | >creating same names cause technical changes to AD or its
| >> | >objects or do same names merely create administrative
| >> | >Convenience?
| >> | >
| >> | >What does one do when a company's existing DNS structure
| >> | >is not ideal (i.e., following an acquisition) but also cannot
| >> | >be changed in the timeframe needed to implement AD? I assume
| >> | >you would implement an AD structure which reflects current
| >> | >ideal (as opposed to paralleling the outdated existing DNS
| >> | >structure) but does this divergence then create technical or
| >> | >administrative issues?
| >> | >
| >> | >Regards,
| >> | >
| >> | >Surfer
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | >
| >> | >
[email protected] (Ben [MSFT]) wrote in message
| >> | >> Hey Surfer,
| >> | >>
| >> | >> When creating a normal primary forward lookup zone in a MS DNS
server
we
| >> | >> are storing that information in a .dns file on the server itself.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> When choosing to create an AD-Integrated forward lookup zone we
store
this
| >> | >> information within Active Directory. There are many advantages
to
this.
| >> | >> One is when a DC is also a DNS server we do not have to perform
any
"zone
| >> | >> transfers" to get the forward lookup zone. Instead we will get
this
| >> | >> information with AD replication and will automatically create the
fwd
| >> | >> lookup zone.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> Also with AD-Integrated zones we only have to deal with AD
replication
| >> | >> latency to make sure all DNS servers have the latest
information/updates.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> Again this is all contingent on DNS being installed on a W2K DC.
| >> | >>
| >> | >> blim
| >> | >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no
rights.
| >> | >> --------------------
| >> | >> | >From: (e-mail address removed) (Surfer)
| >> | >> | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >> | >> | >Subject: AD and DNS domains & dependencies
| >> | >> | >Date: 1 Dec 2003 13:28:31 -0800
| >> | >> | >Organization:
http://groups.google.com
| >> | >> | >Lines: 18
| >> | >> | >Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
| >> | >> | >NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.109.159.59
| >> | >> | >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
| >> | >> | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
| >> | >> | >X-Trace: posting.google.com 1070314111 32470 127.0.0.1 (1 Dec
2003
21:28:31 GMT)
| >> | >> | >X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
| >> | >> | >NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:28:31 +0000 (UTC)
| >> | >> | >Path:
| >> | >>
| >>
cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfee
| >> | >>
| >>
d01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!postnews1.google.com!not-for-ma
| >> | >> il
| >> | >> | >Xref: cpmsftngxa06.phx.gbl
microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory:58092
| >> | >> | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >> | >Hello,
| >> | >> | >Hoping someone can clarify a basic question regarding my study
| >> | >> | >of AD and DNS.
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >> | >My understanding is that MS DNS is RFC standards based and
that
| >> | >> | >none of the RFCs reference or have dependencies on AD
technologies.
| >> | >> | >Similarly, AD is RFC standards based and none of those RFCs
reference
| >> | >> | >DNS. Yet the DNS wizard allows for the creation of Active
Directory
| >> | >> | >Integrated Zones which tends to imply AD and DNS become
integrated.
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >> | >So the question basically is whether creating and AD Integrated
| >> | >> | >zone changes the security functionality which would exist if a
Standard
| >> | >> | >zone was created. Or is it that "integration" merely creates a
| >> | >> | >"better DNS" (records stored in AD, zone replication uses AD,
etc.)
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >> | >Regards,
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >> | >Surfer
| >> | >> | >
| >> | >
| >
