similar to: getting no SRV record

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "getting no SRV record"

2020 Jun 10
2
getting no SRV record
Same result: root@[dchost]:~# host -t SRV _ldap._tcp.$(hostname -d) _ldap._tcp.[domain].work has no SRV record (Sent from home location.) Bob Wooden Donelson Trophy 615.885.2846 On 6/10/20 2:37 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 10/06/2020 20:25, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: >> I am setting up a newly reloaded Ubuntu 18.04.4LTS Samba 4.12.3 >> domain controller with
2020 Jun 10
2
getting no SRV record
Here's what happened: root@[dchost]:~# samba_dnsupdate --use-samba-tool Failed to get Kerberos credentials, falling back to samba-tool: kinit for [dchost]$@[domain].WORK failed (Cannot contact any KDC for requested realm) ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (9711, 'WERR_DNS_ERROR_RECORD_ALREADY_EXISTS') >>>>>>>> snipped for brevity
2020 Jun 10
2
getting no SRV record
It is the first DC in a new domain. Nothing is "joined" to it. (Sent from home location.) Bob Wooden Donelson Trophy 615.885.2846 On 6/10/20 3:04 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > On 10/06/2020 20:51, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: >> Same result: >> >> root@[dchost]:~# host -t SRV _ldap._tcp.$(hostname -d) >> _ldap._tcp.[domain].work has no SRV record >
2020 Jun 11
2
getting no SRV record
(Sent from home location.) Bob Wooden On 6/10/20 4:16 PM, Rowland penny via samba wrote: > Try checking /etc/resolv.conf, it should be: > > search [domain].work > > nameserver <the DC's ipaddress> > > I seem to remember Bind9 being mentioned, is it running ? > > Is /etc/hosts set up correctly ? > > Rowland And here ya go. root@[[dchost]:~# cat
2020 Jun 10
0
getting no SRV record
On 10/06/2020 21:58, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: > Here's what happened: > > root@[dchost]:~# samba_dnsupdate --use-samba-tool > Failed to get Kerberos credentials, falling back to samba-tool: kinit > for [dchost]$@[domain].WORK failed (Cannot contact any KDC for > requested realm) > > ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (9711, >
2020 Jun 11
2
getting no SRV record
On 11/06/2020 12:16, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: > When I "nslookup". I get: > > root@[dchost]:~# nslookup [dchost].[domain].work > Server:??? ??? 192.168.116.50 > Address:??? 192.168.116.50#53 > > Non-authoritative answer: > Name:??? [dchost].[domain].work > Address: xx.198.245.139 > > This local active directory is the first I have ever setup with a
2020 Jun 11
0
getting no SRV record
(Sent from home location.) Bob Wooden On 6/10/20 7:51 PM, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: > > (Sent from home location.) > > Bob Wooden > > > root@[[dchost]:~# cat /etc/hosts > 127.0.0.1??? localhost > 192.168.16.50??? [dchost].[domain].work??? [dchost] > > root@[dchost]:~# systemctl status bind9 > ? bind9.service - BIND Domain Name Server > ?? Loaded: loaded
2020 Sep 26
2
Debian client/workstation pam_mount
Yes, sorry, forgot to include in the last email. > root at lws4:~# getent passwd tuser16 > tuser16:*:10016:10000:User 16. Test:/home/WKDOM/tuser16:/bin/sh > On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 9:02 AM Rowland penny via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On 26/09/2020 14:52, Robert Wooden wrote: > > First, my use of IP addresses is a force of habit. User at shorthostname >
2019 Jan 07
2
dns_tkey_gssnegotiate: TKEY is unacceptable
Call me dense, but now I am more confused. I have tried with and without quotes ... all over the place (i.e. in the smb.config and on the command line) and everything still results in errors, although not always exactly the same. Messing with the command line results in things like this: ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (9711, 'WERR_DNS_ERROR_RECORD_ALREADY_EXISTS')   File
2020 Sep 26
3
Debian client/workstation pam_mount
Okay, now so I don't get confused. Yes, /home/WKDOM/tuser16 does exist on the client/workstation. root at lws4:~# getent group > root:x:0: > *..snipped for brevity..* > winbindd_priv:x:129: > sshgroup:x:998:adminlinux > postfix:x:130: > ..snipped for brevity.. > There is no servers-ssh group on the C/W. (I have a server-ssh group somewhere per Louis' instructions,
2020 Jun 11
2
getting no SRV record
On 11/06/2020 14:04, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: > In my previous AD domain, my FQDN was a non-registered (fake) domain > that has worked for years. For example "fakedomainname.intials", like > "domain.dt". This started, back in the day when we were suspose to > stop using *.local (like MS always suggested.) It worked so I never > looked back. It sounds from
2024 Aug 19
1
Samba AD DC DNS issue after upgrade
Hi, I upgraded my DC and file server from ubuntu 22.04 to 24.04 and then also upgraded Samba from 4.14 to 4.21. Now the only user that can log in is Administrator. Adding the min protocol = NT1 lines enables users to log in but file server logins fail with "incorrect password" message Systemctl status samba-ad-dc shows the following line /usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: ERROR(runtime):
2020 Aug 24
2
problem whith samba and dnsupdate command
Problem whith dnsupdate --> /etc/samba# samba_dnsupdate --all-names --fail-immediately Failed to get Kerberos credentials, falling back to samba-tool: kinit for DOMAIN-SERVER2$@POLICIA2.RIONEGRO.GOV.AR failed (Cannot contact any KDC for requested realm) ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (9711, 'WERR_DNS_ERROR_RECORD_ALREADY_EXISTS') File
2020 Feb 27
4
New PTR records not visible
Ok, new test. Besides that i dont like the python errors shown, this still looks good. So i dont know.. See below, i can not make it error. for x in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ; do samba-tool dns add dc1.internal.dom.tld $x.249.10.in-addr.arpa 158 PTR host-test.extrazone.dom.tld ; done Record added successfully Record added successfully Record added successfully Record added
2020 Feb 26
5
New PTR records not visible
So strange.. I copied your commando's only change the arpa and servername / domainnames All worked. So far nobody told how there ad-dc and DNS is setup.. Which i why i added : > > Debian 10, my own packages. > > Samba 4.11.6 + BIND9_DLZ is used . Now are you using samba DNS or BIND_DLZ dns ? That might help here. Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk
2018 May 02
4
samba_dnsupdate --all-names -> dns_tkey_negotiategss: TKEY is unacceptable
Hi Rowland, Am 02.05.2018 um 14:27 schrieb Rowland Penny via samba: > Try adding 'dns update command = /usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate > --use-samba-tool' to smb.conf > > and run 'samba_dnsupdate --all-names --use-samba-tool' we did this and we now getting the following error-message: ----------- . . ERROR(runtime): uncaught exception - (9711,
2018 Dec 31
3
AD bind DNS broken after 4.7.3 -> 4.9.2 upgrade
Can you try to upgrade to any 4.8 version then to 4.9.4? might work, atleast my guess this will have a better chance get passed this bug. Greetz, Louis > Op 31 dec. 2018 om 18:35 heeft Král Gergely via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> het volgende geschreven: > > 2018-12-31 17:29 id??pontban Rowland Penny via samba ezt írta: > >>> >> >> OK,
2019 Dec 12
0
Replication issues samba 4.10.11-SerNet-Debian-10.buster
Hello, We added a new samba DC with 4.10.11-SerNet-Debian-10.buster? to our existing 5 ones and can?t obtain replication. Comparing configuration with other functioning DCs did not show any relevant difference. The only difference during the configuration procedure was that DNS PTR and A records were added after joining the domain and not before. The sernet-samba-ad service is running but
2020 Jun 10
0
getting no SRV record
On 10/06/2020 20:51, Bob Wooden via samba wrote: > Same result: > > root@[dchost]:~# host -t SRV _ldap._tcp.$(hostname -d) > _ldap._tcp.[domain].work has no SRV record Is this the first DC in a new domain, or a new DC joined to an existing domain ? If it is the latter, then it might be a samba_dnsupdate problem, try looking in syslog. You could try adding 'dns update command =
2019 Jan 02
2
AD bind DNS broken after 4.7.3 -> 4.9.2 upgrade
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 20:09:44 +0100 Král Gergely via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > 2018-12-31 20:50 időpontban L.P.H. van Belle via samba ezt írta: > > Can you try to upgrade to any 4.8 version then to 4.9.4? > > might work, atleast my guess this will have a better chance get > > passed this bug. > > > > I can confirm that an upgrade to 4.7.3 to