Active Directory / DNS naming design, multiple sites, single domain,

The network I currently manage will shortly be expanding to cover two sites, and due to the organisation of the company, I have already determined that a site-to-site hardware VPN will be implemented to link the two sites. The WAN link between the two will be between 20-100mb so no issues with bandwidth for AD/DFS etc. replication.

I will also likely be looking at installing a single Active Directory domain across both HQ and branch office, as I understand that modern day Microsoft best practices recommend steering away from multiple domains in a single forest except in exceptional circumstances.

My question is this...

If I maintain one domain across both sites (say company.com), how can I maintain a logical DNS separation between the two sites, (say for arguments sake dc1.london.company.com and dc1.birmingham.company.com)? Can this be done by structuring DNS in a certain way, without having to have a london.company.com and birmingham.company.com AD domain, one for each site?

Thank you in advance for any advice that can point me in the right direction!

Answer

You don't have different DNS namespaces for the two branches if they're in the same AD domain. There's no reason to. They would both be in the same DNS namespace as the parent. What reason would you have for two different DNS namespaces?

Also, avoid naming your AD domain "company.com" if that's also what your external website's name is. Name it something like "ad.company.com" or "internal.company.com". Having a split namespace will cause headaches.

Comments

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able

Blog

Search This Blog