samba - Feb 2015 - specify alternative port for samba internal dns server

I asked this question on serverfault
http://serverfault.com/questions/666972/possible-to-make-samba4s-internal-dns-server-listen-on-non-standard-port

I would like to be able to configure the internal samba dns server to
listen on a port other than 53 so I can easily interoperate the samba
internal dns with another dns server on the same host.

Many other samba services have configuration to change the default port --
the dns server should as well.

On 26/02/15 22:15, Ben Cohen wrote:
> I asked this question on serverfault
>
http://serverfault.com/questions/666972/possible-to-make-samba4s-internal-dns-server-listen-on-non-standard-port
>
> I would like to be able to configure the internal samba dns server to
> listen on a port other than 53 so I can easily interoperate the samba
> internal dns with another dns server on the same host.
>
> Many other samba services have configuration to change the default port --
> the dns server should as well.
Just like you where told on the link you provided *NO*

The kerberos server built into samba4 relies on dns, so the dns server 
needs to be authorative for the dns domain, anything else it forwards to 
another dns server outside the domain.

Rowland

On 26/02/15 22:58, Ben Cohen wrote:
> My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for 
> 'ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com>' but not for
mydomain.com
> <http://mydomain.com>. The dns server that the clients in my domain 
> use is statically configured to resolve all requests for 
> ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com> via the samba internal dns
--
> I believe this is exactly what is required for samba to function ...  
> Is this incorrect somehow?
You should point your domain members to the DC, if the record the client 
requires is inside the AD domain, the DC will return answer, if it 
doesn't know, it will forward the request to whatever you have set as 
the forwarder.
>
> A whole bunch of other samba services can listen on other than the 
> default service port through configuration options ...  Why should the 
> dns service uniquely deserve an all-caps *NO* with regard to this 
> configurability?
>
You could always try and alter the ldap port that samba4 listens on, oh 
sorry, you cannot change that either can you.

Please stop trying to bend AD to your way of working.

Rowland

I found with my Windows clients it was extremely important to point them 
to the Samba AD only.

No other ip_address for DNS, and as Rowland indicates, anything they 
need outside the domain is resolved by Samba forwarding the request (in 
my case, it's our gateway device which in turn forwards outside)

On 02/26/2015 06:06 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 26/02/15 22:58, Ben Cohen wrote:
>> My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for 
>> 'ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com>' but not for
mydomain.com
>> <http://mydomain.com>. The dns server that the clients in my
domain
>> use is statically configured to resolve all requests for 
>> ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com> via the samba internal
dns
>> -- I believe this is exactly what is required for samba to function 
>> ...  Is this incorrect somehow?
>
> You should point your domain members to the DC, if the record the 
> client requires is inside the AD domain, the DC will return answer, if 
> it doesn't know, it will forward the request to whatever you have set 
> as the forwarder.

On 26/02/15 23:39, Ben Cohen wrote:
> Please stop making the assumption that I don't have different problems 
> than you...
>
> I support IT environments that are connected via incredibly slow 
> internet links -- user clients CANNOT use something other than my dns 
> server as their dns resolver -- I have to implement logic which 
> controls all internet access, including dns resolution, on a per user 
> basis per-byte basis -- if I put another dns server in-between me and 
> the network clients, I lose the information by which my dns 
> forwarding-resolver can make the identify determination.  Perhaps you 
> have some way of passing forward the identity information regarding 
> which client is making the dns request in a way that my 
> network-access-control appliance understands -- oh, right no you don't 
> do you?
>
> In my testing my approach seems to work the way I want to do things -- 
> two servers, one with dnsmasq, one with samba internal dns.  Clients 
> point at my dnsmasq, dnsmasq resolves ad domain via samba dns.  Is 
> this not appropriate for some reason?  How does this go against the 
> 'ad' way? As far as I can tell there is absolutely nothing wrong
with
> this architecture ... why should the clients need to talk to the samba 
> dns directly rather than via my intermediary -- is that actually 
> required?  Its my impression that my campus network doesn't do this 
> with normal active directory -- I believe they run BIND and queries 
> for ad.foo.com <http://ad.foo.com> are resolved via authoritative AD 
> dns servers running on windows server ...  Isn't that the normal way?
>
> The reason I want to run the samba4 dns on a different port than the 
> default is to avoid having to run an additional OS -- my environments 
> are very expensive to put equipment in, reducing the hardware and OS 
> count is desirable, particularly where there is not a good reason that 
> something needs to have its own OS instance ...
>
> It seems you reference a straw-man desire to customize the ldap server 
> port in order to evoke some history of problems surrounding people 
> trying to use services that don't work with the AD model within 
> samba.  In fact my GOAL is exactly the opposite -- I WANT to USE the 
> samba integrated dns in order to avoid having any issues with the 
> required set of magic AD dns behaviours -- rather than trying to hack 
> those required dns behaviours into my existing dns configuration ...
>
> I appreciate your thoughts and if my suggested approach (with two 
> servers) truly isn't going to work, it would be huge if you or someone 
> else could tell me and give a lot insight why ... because my plan even 
> with a *NO* on the ability to change the port that samba-dns listens 
> on, is to use two servers as described above ...  If that's not gonna 
> work for some reason it'd be awesome to find out now ...
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rowland Penny 
> <rowlandpenny at googlemail.com <mailto:rowlandpenny at
googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 26/02/15 22:58, Ben Cohen wrote:
>
>         My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for
>         'ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com>
>         <http://ad.mydomain.com>' but not for mydomain.com
>         <http://mydomain.com> <http://mydomain.com>. The dns
server
>         that the clients in my domain use is statically configured to
>         resolve all requests for ad.mydomain.com
>         <http://ad.mydomain.com> <http://ad.mydomain.com> via
the
>         samba internal dns -- I believe this is exactly what is
>         required for samba to function ...  Is this incorrect somehow?
>
>
>     You should point your domain members to the DC, if the record the
>     client requires is inside the AD domain, the DC will return
>     answer, if it doesn't know, it will forward the request to
>     whatever you have set as the forwarder.
>
>
>         A whole bunch of other samba services can listen on other than
>         the default service port through configuration options ... 
>         Why should the dns service uniquely deserve an all-caps *NO*
>         with regard to this configurability?
>
>
>     You could always try and alter the ldap port that samba4 listens
>     on, oh sorry, you cannot change that either can you.
>
>     Please stop trying to bend AD to your way of working.
>
>
>     Rowland
>     -- 
>     To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>     instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>
>
Please stop sending emails directly to me, keep it on list.

If you are struggling with resources, you could run another OS inside a 
VM and point the samba forwarder to a DNS server running on the OS in 
the VM.

Would you try and circumvent the way a windows server works, I do not 
think so and as samba4 AD works exactly the same as windows AD, you 
shouldn't try to change the way it works.

Note that this is the last I will have to say on this subject.

Rowland

Whoops - sorry for responding to you directly rather than via the list -- I
only use gmail for extremely high-volume mailing lists, and usually that's
just to skim-read them -- so I don't know the gmail web-ui very well (and
it seems to change all the time) -- apologies.  (Also i have no idea how to
not top-post with gmail ...  I'll figure that out for next time)

You seem to have strong opinions regarding the default port for the dns
server - I disagree with you but I'm not going to try to change your deeply
held beliefs.

While expressing your opinions earlier in the thread, the idea was raised
that it is somehow _REQUIRED_ for clients to use the samba internal dns
directly rather than receive dns responses via an intermediary dns server
-- can someone confirm whether or not this is the case?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny at
googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 26/02/15 23:39, Ben Cohen wrote:
>
>> Please stop making the assumption that I don't have different
problems
>> than you...
>>
>> I support IT environments that are connected via incredibly slow
internet
>> links -- user clients CANNOT use something other than my dns server as
>> their dns resolver -- I have to implement logic which controls all
internet
>> access, including dns resolution, on a per user basis per-byte basis --
if
>> I put another dns server in-between me and the network clients, I lose
the
>> information by which my dns forwarding-resolver can make the identify
>> determination.  Perhaps you have some way of passing forward the
identity
>> information regarding which client is making the dns request in a way
that
>> my network-access-control appliance understands -- oh, right no you
don't
>> do you?
>>
>> In my testing my approach seems to work the way I want to do things --
>> two servers, one with dnsmasq, one with samba internal dns.  Clients
point
>> at my dnsmasq, dnsmasq resolves ad domain via samba dns.  Is this not
>> appropriate for some reason?  How does this go against the 'ad'
way? As far
>> as I can tell there is absolutely nothing wrong with this architecture
...
>> why should the clients need to talk to the samba dns directly rather
than
>> via my intermediary -- is that actually required?  Its my impression
that
>> my campus network doesn't do this with normal active directory -- I
believe
>> they run BIND and queries for ad.foo.com <http://ad.foo.com> are
>> resolved via authoritative AD dns servers running on windows server ...
>> Isn't that the normal way?
>>
>> The reason I want to run the samba4 dns on a different port than the
>> default is to avoid having to run an additional OS -- my environments
are
>> very expensive to put equipment in, reducing the hardware and OS count
is
>> desirable, particularly where there is not a good reason that something
>> needs to have its own OS instance ...
>>
>> It seems you reference a straw-man desire to customize the ldap server
>> port in order to evoke some history of problems surrounding people
trying
>> to use services that don't work with the AD model within samba.  In
fact my
>> GOAL is exactly the opposite -- I WANT to USE the samba integrated dns
in
>> order to avoid having any issues with the required set of magic AD dns
>> behaviours -- rather than trying to hack those required dns behaviours
into
>> my existing dns configuration ...
>>
>> I appreciate your thoughts and if my suggested approach (with two
>> servers) truly isn't going to work, it would be huge if you or
someone else
>> could tell me and give a lot insight why ... because my plan even with
a
>> *NO* on the ability to change the port that samba-dns listens on, is to
use
>> two servers as described above ...  If that's not gonna work for
some
>> reason it'd be awesome to find out now ...
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rowland Penny <
>> rowlandpenny at googlemail.com <mailto:rowlandpenny at
googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 26/02/15 22:58, Ben Cohen wrote:
>>
>>         My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for
>>         'ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com>
>>         <http://ad.mydomain.com>' but not for mydomain.com
>>         <http://mydomain.com> <http://mydomain.com>. The
dns server
>>         that the clients in my domain use is statically configured to
>>         resolve all requests for ad.mydomain.com
>>         <http://ad.mydomain.com> <http://ad.mydomain.com>
via the
>>         samba internal dns -- I believe this is exactly what is
>>         required for samba to function ...  Is this incorrect somehow?
>>
>>
>>     You should point your domain members to the DC, if the record the
>>     client requires is inside the AD domain, the DC will return
>>     answer, if it doesn't know, it will forward the request to
>>     whatever you have set as the forwarder.
>>
>>
>>         A whole bunch of other samba services can listen on other than
>>         the default service port through configuration options ...
>>  Why should the dns service uniquely deserve an all-caps *NO*
>>         with regard to this configurability?
>>
>>
>>     You could always try and alter the ldap port that samba4 listens
>>     on, oh sorry, you cannot change that either can you.
>>
>>     Please stop trying to bend AD to your way of working.
>>
>>
>>     Rowland
>>     --     To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and
read
>> the
>>     instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>>
>>
>>
> Please stop sending emails directly to me, keep it on list.
>
> If you are struggling with resources, you could run another OS inside a VM
> and point the samba forwarder to a DNS server running on the OS in the VM.
>
> Would you try and circumvent the way a windows server works, I do not
> think so and as samba4 AD works exactly the same as windows AD, you
> shouldn't try to change the way it works.
>
> Note that this is the last I will have to say on this subject.
>
>
> Rowland
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>

My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for
'ad.mydomain.com'
but not for mydomain.com.  The dns server that the clients in my domain use
is statically configured to resolve all requests for ad.mydomain.com via
the samba internal dns -- I believe this is exactly what is required for
samba to function ...  Is this incorrect somehow?

A whole bunch of other samba services can listen on other than the default
service port through configuration options ...  Why should the dns service
uniquely deserve an all-caps *NO* with regard to this configurability?

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny at
googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 26/02/15 22:15, Ben Cohen wrote:
>
>> I asked this question on serverfault
>> http://serverfault.com/questions/666972/possible-to-
>> make-samba4s-internal-dns-server-listen-on-non-standard-port
>>
>> I would like to be able to configure the internal samba dns server to
>> listen on a port other than 53 so I can easily interoperate the samba
>> internal dns with another dns server on the same host.
>>
>> Many other samba services have configuration to change the default port
--
>> the dns server should as well.
>>
>
> Just like you where told on the link you provided *NO*
>
> The kerberos server built into samba4 relies on dns, so the dns server
> needs to be authorative for the dns domain, anything else it forwards to
> another dns server outside the domain.
>
> Rowland
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>

Please stop making the assumption that I don't have different problems than
you...

I support IT environments that are connected via incredibly slow internet
links -- user clients CANNOT use something other than my dns server as
their dns resolver -- I have to implement logic which controls all internet
access, including dns resolution, on a per user basis per-byte basis -- if
I put another dns server in-between me and the network clients, I lose the
information by which my dns forwarding-resolver can make the identify
determination.  Perhaps you have some way of passing forward the identity
information regarding which client is making the dns request in a way that
my network-access-control appliance understands -- oh, right no you don't
do you?

In my testing my approach seems to work the way I want to do things -- two
servers, one with dnsmasq, one with samba internal dns.  Clients point at
my dnsmasq, dnsmasq resolves ad domain via samba dns.  Is this not
appropriate for some reason?  How does this go against the 'ad' way?  As
far as I can tell there is absolutely nothing wrong with this architecture
... why should the clients need to talk to the samba dns directly rather
than via my intermediary -- is that actually required?  Its my impression
that my campus network doesn't do this with normal active directory -- I
believe they run BIND and queries for ad.foo.com are resolved via
authoritative AD dns servers running on windows server ...  Isn't that the
normal way?

The reason I want to run the samba4 dns on a different port than the
default is to avoid having to run an additional OS -- my environments are
very expensive to put equipment in, reducing the hardware and OS count is
desirable, particularly where there is not a good reason that something
needs to have its own OS instance ...

It seems you reference a straw-man desire to customize the ldap server port
in order to evoke some history of problems surrounding people trying to use
services that don't work with the AD model within samba.  In fact my GOAL
is exactly the opposite -- I WANT to USE the samba integrated dns in order
to avoid having any issues with the required set of magic AD dns behaviours
-- rather than trying to hack those required dns behaviours into my
existing dns configuration ...

I appreciate your thoughts and if my suggested approach (with two servers)
truly isn't going to work, it would be huge if you or someone else could
tell me and give a lot insight why ... because my plan even with a *NO* on
the ability to change the port that samba-dns listens on, is to use two
servers as described above ...  If that's not gonna work for some reason
it'd be awesome to find out now ...

Thanks,

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Rowland Penny <rowlandpenny at
googlemail.com>
wrote:
> On 26/02/15 22:58, Ben Cohen wrote:
>
>> My goal is for the samba dns server to be authoritative for '
>> ad.mydomain.com <http://ad.mydomain.com>' but not for
mydomain.com <
>> http://mydomain.com>. The dns server that the clients in my domain
use
>> is statically configured to resolve all requests for ad.mydomain.com
<
>> http://ad.mydomain.com> via the samba internal dns -- I believe this
is
>> exactly what is required for samba to function ...  Is this incorrect
>> somehow?
>>
>
> You should point your domain members to the DC, if the record the client
> requires is inside the AD domain, the DC will return answer, if it
doesn't
> know, it will forward the request to whatever you have set as the
forwarder.
>
>
>> A whole bunch of other samba services can listen on other than the
>> default service port through configuration options ...  Why should the
dns
>> service uniquely deserve an all-caps *NO* with regard to this
>> configurability?
>>
>>
> You could always try and alter the ldap port that samba4 listens on, oh
> sorry, you cannot change that either can you.
>
> Please stop trying to bend AD to your way of working.
>
>
> Rowland
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>