samba - Feb 2019 - Samba + BIND9 DLZ. DNS dosen't resolve FQDN, only short hostname

Well, finally I found the recommendations against .local here:

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Active_Directory_Naming_FAQ


However, still, the originating wiki should AFAIK be more verbose.

https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller


For now it only says "Make sure that you provision the AD using a DNS
domain that will not need to be changed. Samba does not support renaming
the AD DNS zone and Kerberos realm. For additional information, see
Active Directory Naming FAQ."

I wish this would indicate somehow, that some TLD's are very problematic
and strongly discouraged. I took this notice like this: "I'm sure I
won't need to rename, so I don't need to read the Additional information
on AD Naming."


Dňa 20. 2. 2019 o 11:33 Rowland Penny via samba
napísal(a):
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 11:17:05 +0100
> "L.P.H. van Belle via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org>
wrote:
>
>> Hai, 
>>
>>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>>> Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org] Namens Mgr. 
>>> Peter Tuharsky via samba
>>> Verzonden: woensdag 20 februari 2019 10:28
>>> Aan: samba at lists.samba.org
>>> Onderwerp: Re: [Samba] Samba + BIND9 DLZ. DNS dosen't resolve 
>>> FQDN, only short hostname
>>>
>>> Well, the mystery is solved. It WAS Avahi, in a way... 
>> This is said wrong. ... 
>>
>>> Eventhough it was disabled as a daemon, 
>>> it still haunted the system by the means of nsswitch.conf
>>>
>>> In the 'hosts' line, the Debian default entry
'mdns4_minimal
>>> [NOTFOUND=return]' does exactly what we don't want - for 
>>> .local domains
>>> it asks Avahi and if it dosen't know, it never asks the other 
>>> services,
>>> such as dns etc.
>> And wrong is `the domain is .local` 
>> Why o why is .local use. That is a reserved name for mDNS (avahi)..
>> Yes. So what happend here is TOTALY CORRECT. Here the problem is you
>> are using  .local 
>>
>>> I hope the documentation (Wiki) should be more vocal about that -
>>> that if the domain is .local, the 'dns' entry MUST precede
>>> 'mdns4_minimal' and 'mdns4' entries.
>> Possible yes, but if correctly setup, not needed. 
>> And a bit ahead thinking people... Future systems, will mostly use
>> systemd, if we like it or not. 
> Seemingly not on a Tesla:
>
>
https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/92uu0x/model_3_has_a_hidden_web_browser/
>
> Rowland
>
>

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:04:40 +0100
"Mgr. Peter Tuharsky via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org>
wrote:
> Well, finally I found the recommendations against .local here:
> 
> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Active_Directory_Naming_FAQ
> 
> 
> However, still, the originating wiki should AFAIK be more verbose.
> 
>
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller
> 
> 
> For now it only says "Make sure that you provision the AD using a DNS
> domain that will not need to be changed. Samba does not support
> renaming the AD DNS zone and Kerberos realm. For additional
> information, see Active Directory Naming FAQ."
> 
> I wish this would indicate somehow, that some TLD's are very
> problematic and strongly discouraged. I took this notice like this:
> "I'm sure I won't need to rename, so I don't need to read
the
> Additional information on AD Naming."
> 
I have updated the warning, but you should have read the additional
info.

Rowland

Thank You, Rowland.

Dňa 20. 2. 2019 o 15:18 Rowland Penny via samba
napísal(a):
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:04:40 +0100
> "Mgr. Peter Tuharsky via samba" <samba at lists.samba.org>
wrote:
>
>> Well, finally I found the recommendations against .local here:
>>
>> https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Active_Directory_Naming_FAQ
>>
>>
>> However, still, the originating wiki should AFAIK be more verbose.
>>
>>
https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Setting_up_Samba_as_an_Active_Directory_Domain_Controller
>>
>>
>> For now it only says "Make sure that you provision the AD using a
DNS
>> domain that will not need to be changed. Samba does not support
>> renaming the AD DNS zone and Kerberos realm. For additional
>> information, see Active Directory Naming FAQ."
>>
>> I wish this would indicate somehow, that some TLD's are very
>> problematic and strongly discouraged. I took this notice like this:
>> "I'm sure I won't need to rename, so I don't need to
read the
>> Additional information on AD Naming."
>>
> I have updated the warning, but you should have read the additional
> info.
>
> Rowland
>
>