windows - Server 2008 DNS/Hostname Lookups Giving Out Wrong NIC

So I have a Server 2008 machine which also acts as a PDC, and provides DNS to all other machines. Now, the server has 2 NICs, one on a 172.16.0.0/24 LAN, and one on a 192.168.47.0/24 LAN. Every other machine on the network has one NIC, and belongs to one network or the other.

DHCP is working fine, but hostname/DNS lookups using the server name of the PDC sometimes resolves to the wrong NIC.

Now, DNS does have hostname entries for the pdc for both addresses, but I can’t have a computer not on that network getting a resolved address it can’t reach.

Ex: Computer pdc1 has addresses 192.168.47.1 and 172.16.0.1. Client client1 has a NIC physically on the 192.168.47 network. For that reason, DHCP works fine, it gets an address. However, when it looks up the address for pdc1, it gets 172.16.0.1, which isnt reachable and causes lots of problems.

My question is, what is the standard way to prevent this situation? I know I’m not the only one with a PDC on separate NICs, where the client computers need to look up the server name and get the address on the network it’s actually on.

I know a cheap solution is to add the correct address to each clients host file, but this is a workaround since the relationship is now managed on each client pc and not the domain controller.

Any tips are appreciated!

Answer

By default Microsoft DNS server use round robin when serving DNS queries. It means it returns one or another address in circural fashion.
In your case, you should reconfigure it to use network prioritization, according to this document:

DNS subnet priorities

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