similar to: samba dns

Would prefer to continue to use my NSD/Unbound installs for most DNS (if not all) services. NSD is the authoritative server for the domain, and Unbound is the cache/resolver that the clients connect to. I'd like to not disturb this setup but I'll need the SRV records so that AD works. If the SRV records are fixed I suppose I could host them using NSD, then Samba wouldn't have to be

I have implemented a small local network. I use pfSense as Firewall and Gateway, I have all my servers inside a DMZ, except the domain controllers that are on the LAN. LAN: 10.10.20.0/24 DMZ: 10.10.30.0/24 DC1: 10.10.20.2 DC2: 10.10.20.3 pfSense: LAN: 10.10.20.1 WAN: x.x.x.x DMZ: 10.10.30.1 In my local network, I have 2 domain controllers with SAMBA4, I would like to find

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Sketch <smblist at rednsx.org> wrote: > My understanding of Unbound is that designed as a caching nameserver, not an > authoratative nameserver. It's supposed to serve DNS to clients from > another server, such as BIND or Samba's internal DNS server. Pointing it to > your domain's authoratative Samba/BIND9_DLZ DNS servers seems like

On 03/10/2016 07:13 AM, Michael H wrote: > On 10/03/16 14:47, Leonardo Oliveira Ortiz wrote: >> Hello. >> >> I think Centos are affected, right? >> >> Some update from Centos? >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Sketch <smblist at rednsx.org> wrote: > My guess would be not much, because BIND9_DLZ exists and (mostly) gives you > the best of both worlds. If you want to use bind with MS DNS servers, then > you have to go that route, but it's not necessary with Samba 4 and > BIND9_DLZ. That's clear but I was thinking more of the analogous

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016, Rowland penny wrote: > Your DC needs to be authoritative for your AD domain, this is *not* a Samba > thing, it is an AD thing. What you can do, is to do what is recommended, make > your AD domain a subdomain of your domain i.e. if your domain name is > 'domain.tld', use 'internal.domain.tld' for your AD domain. > > Your AD DC will then be

As soon as RHEL does. On 03/10/2016 02:13 PM, Leonardo Oliveira Ortiz wrote: > CentOS will provide an update to fix it? > > ________________________________________ > De: centos-bounces at centos.org [centos-bounces at centos.org] em nome de Alice Wonder [alice at domblogger.net] > Enviado: quinta-feira, 10 de mar?o de 2016 15:31 > Para: centos at centos.org > Assunto: Re:

Greetings, Unbound 1.4.20 OS X 10.8.4 - Server NSD 3.2.15 I have installed 'unbound' and it works nicely on my client (test purpose) - Client is MacBook Air. I have installed NSD (will be in replacement of BIND) on said client. All is good but when i try to start NSD Error --> nsd can't bind udp socket: address already in use. Everything is configured to bind to 127.0.0.1. #

On 12/24/2015 11:32 AM, Rowland penny wrote: > On 24/12/15 15:32, mathias dufresne wrote: >> And to get mentioned entries list I used: >> "samba_dnsupdate --verbose --all-names | grep Default-First-Site-name" >> >> This list 8 DNS records related to Default Site. >> >> Next was to change Default-First... by the name of another AD Site >> (sed

Hi, I'm a sys admin and currently working for a french hosting company. We provide DNS services to our customers and at the moment we are using BIND on Debian servers. BIND is a good software but we don't need a recursing DNS for our public DNS, and we needed better security than what BIND provides. So I made the suggestion to replace BIND by another DNS software. NSD appears to be the

Hello, My question is not related to NSD in particular, but I have seen here on the list a lot of people that work for TLDs and other Registrars and Registry operators I thought it would be a good place to ask this question. It is about DNS though, not completely off topic :). I have encountered in my DNS studies a few name servers that let you transfer zones they are authoritative for. The

On 12/28/2015 9:21 AM, Rowland penny wrote: > On 28/12/15 14:06, James wrote: >> On 12/24/2015 11:32 AM, Rowland penny wrote: >>> On 24/12/15 15:32, mathias dufresne wrote: >>>> And to get mentioned entries list I used: >>>> "samba_dnsupdate --verbose --all-names | grep Default-First-Site-name" >>>> >>>> This list 8 DNS

On 2016.04.06, at 4:13 PM, Rowland penny <rpenny at samba.org> wrote: > > On 06/04/16 21:58, Sonic wrote: >> Would prefer to continue to use my NSD/Unbound installs for most DNS >> (if not all) services. NSD is the authoritative server for the domain, >> and Unbound is the cache/resolver that the clients connect to. I'd >> like to not disturb this setup but

Am 17.04.25 um 09:58 schrieb Yorgos Thessalonikefs via nsd-users: > Hi Andreas, > > On 16/04/2025 23:17, A. Schulze via nsd-users wrote: >> 4. any chance, that https://github.com/NLnetLabs/nsd/pull/437 find it's way in 4.12? >> ??? a similar change in active in unbound-1.23.0rc2 and works well there. > This change was heading to 4.12 but we pulled it because it was

I've been working on this problem for a few hours. Here are some updates: Many of the domains I listed are duplicates of domains managed by other DNS servers on my network. There was no point in having them in Samba AD, so I deleted the zones in Windows DNS Manager and created slaves in my named.conf.local folder, so that they'd pull the records from my authoritative BIND DNS server,

Hi Andreas, On 16/04/2025 23:17, A. Schulze via nsd-users wrote: > 4. any chance, that https://github.com/NLnetLabs/nsd/pull/437 find it's > way in 4.12? > ?? a similar change in active in unbound-1.23.0rc2 and works well there. This change was heading to 4.12 but we pulled it because it was breaking software that implicitly sends the SOA probe over UDP. Maybe a more lenient

Nice shell script,?Louis. Here are the results: Collected config ?--- 2019-06-20-12:46 ----------- Hostname: umbriel DNS Domain: samdom.mycompany.net FQDN: umbriel.samdom.mycompany.net ipaddress: 192.168.3.203? ----------- Samba is running as an AD DC ----------- ? ? ? ?Checking file: /etc/os-release NAME="Ubuntu" VERSION="16.04.6 LTS (Xenial Xerus)" ID=ubuntu

Hi Andreas, On 18/04/2025 23:28, A. Schulze via nsd-users wrote: > I added #437 to my build. It works, somehow... > > I cannot imagine a scenario for any (resolver?) software to implicitly > send a SOA probe over UDP to port 853 / not port 53 > Could you clarify this, please? Unbound is an example when configured with auth zones, it will send the SOA prove over UDP before

I installed a third DC today. Replication works find, but as systemctl status samba-ad-dc showed an error w.r.t. dnsupdate I was running samba_dnsupdate ?verbose. Below is the output. It looks like there are some missing DNS records, but what are potential causes of this error: dns_tkey_gssnegotiate: TKEY is unacceptable I already checked what?s listed @

Hello. I think Centos are affected, right? Some update from Centos?