2016-10-19 8:56 GMT+02:00 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>:> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:25 +0200 > mathias dufresne <infractory at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The domain member will ask its nameserver (which should be an AD > > > DC), > > > > > > > The client send request to its resolver, which can be an AD DC but not > > necessarily (we don't use AD DC as resolver, we use the company's DNS > > which transfer request to AD DC when needed) > > > > You seem to be doing it in the reverse of the recommended way. > i.e. you forward to the DC >That's not the point. Re-read my previous mail please, forget about the fact we forward to the DC as is does not change at all the way DNS is working. And please try to defend your argumentation rather than answering something else.> > Rowland > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba >
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:40:57 +0200 mathias dufresne <infractory at gmail.com> wrote:> 2016-10-19 8:56 GMT+02:00 Rowland Penny via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org>: > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:25 +0200 > > mathias dufresne <infractory at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The domain member will ask its nameserver (which should be an AD > > > > DC), > > > > > > > > > > The client send request to its resolver, which can be an AD DC > > > but not necessarily (we don't use AD DC as resolver, we use the > > > company's DNS which transfer request to AD DC when needed) > > > > > > > You seem to be doing it in the reverse of the recommended way. > > i.e. you forward to the DC > > > > That's not the point. > Re-read my previous mail please, forget about the fact we forward to > the DC as is does not change at all the way DNS is working. > > And please try to defend your argumentation rather than answering > something else. >No, I am not going to start another argument about DNS, you have your point of view and I have mine. You do it your way and I do it my way, your way works for you and mine works for me. Lets leave it at that. Rowland
2016-10-19 11:45 GMT+02:00 Rowland Penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>:> On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:40:57 +0200 > mathias dufresne <infractory at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2016-10-19 8:56 GMT+02:00 Rowland Penny via samba > > <samba at lists.samba.org>: > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:47:25 +0200 > > > mathias dufresne <infractory at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The domain member will ask its nameserver (which should be an AD > > > > > DC), > > > > > > > > > > > > > The client send request to its resolver, which can be an AD DC > > > > but not necessarily (we don't use AD DC as resolver, we use the > > > > company's DNS which transfer request to AD DC when needed) > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be doing it in the reverse of the recommended way. > > > i.e. you forward to the DC > > > > > > > That's not the point. > > Re-read my previous mail please, forget about the fact we forward to > > the DC as is does not change at all the way DNS is working. > > > > And please try to defend your argumentation rather than answering > > something else. > > > > No, I am not going to start another argument about DNS, you have your > point of view and I have mine. You do it your way and I do it my way, > your way works for you and mine works for me. >I have arguments for sure. I did made tests to get them.> > Lets leave it at that. >You're right, it's better you continue to write wrong things about DNS behavior in Samba AD. Sorry aout that.> > Rowland > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba >