root domain naming

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I recall reading an article that explained why the root domain should not be
the same as the Internet presence. In other words if the Internet presence is
abc.com the root domain should be something other that abc.com. I recall that
some networking issues could occurr if that the names were the same. Does
anyone happen to know thw article number?

thanks
 
In
mac said:
I recall reading an article that explained why the root domain should
not be the same as the Internet presence. In other words if the
Internet presence is abc.com the root domain should be something
other that abc.com. I recall that some networking issues could occurr
if that the names were the same. Does anyone happen to know thw
article number?

thanks
Click to expand...

No, but think of it this way - if your *internal* DNS server thinks it's
responsible for, say, google.com, and your clients try to find
www.google.com, your internal DNS server (which needs to be the only DNS
server they query, to make AD happy) will tell them it can't find that host,
and will not hand off the request via a forwarder or root hint to an
external/public DNS server.

If you have company.com as your internal namespace, and you have an
externally hosted website, etc., your users won't be able to get to
www.company.com unless you manually create a host entry for www in your
internal DNS. A pain, esp. if you have a lot of hosts you need to define -
and if your external hosts are on shared servers with dynamic IP addresses.

Many people will use internal.company.com or company.lan or .local, so that
they can avoid this sort of mess.

Do you really need an article now? This is pretty simple. :)
 
Either way is acceptable. Depends on your needs. You just configure your
system differently depending on which way you choose. There are tons of
papers on this subject. Mostly opinionated, but that's okay.

Bottom line is that if you use the same name you will configure accordingly
and if you use a different name you will do the same.

A question you did not address is, are you going to stand up your own public
DNS servers?

I am running a same name system. I use an external DNS provider and manage
my external DNS myself using a web interface. I also manage my internal DNS
servers myself. Works good for me. This way I do not have to rely on my own
DNS servers updating public DNS servers.

-Frank
 
Actually we are runing our own DNS that is why question the practice. I
recall that there could be DNS resolution issues.

Thanks
 
The article number was more for reference than anything else.

thanks for the input though. Resolution issues are sure to occur
 
Microsoft seems to have changed its view re naming of external vs. internal
namespaces. With the advent of Win2k, having identical internal and
external namespaces seemed to be a viable and perhaps desireable solution -
See:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/reskit/deploymentscenarios/sce
narios/dns01_overviewdnsinfrastructure.asp#dns01_internetnamespace

Now this approach is "not recommended" -
See:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKi
t/0b295d9c-6709-4273-85ec-d7c3d3583fdc.mspx

In reality many organizations use identically named AD and Internet domain
names - there are some advantages - eg. uniform e-mail/domain names, etc.
Configuration is easily managed as long as you are aware of the issues.

Doug Sherman
MCSE, MCSA, MCP+I, MVP
 
In
Doug Sherman said:
Microsoft seems to have changed its view re naming of external vs.
internal namespaces. With the advent of Win2k, having identical
internal and external namespaces seemed to be a viable and perhaps
desireable solution - See:
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top