ZeroTier and DNS issues
-
@Dashrender said:
and mentioning ethics, I'm assuming you're talking about how they promised LMI Free would be free forever.
Yes, they made a big commitment to their customers and reneged on it. Even after being confronted, they continued to do it anyway and have continued to do so for the years since. Every day they have the option to apologize and honour their commitments and every day they decide to not stand by their word and commitment. It's not a one time thing, it's an ongoing, every day thing that they continue to do. They always have the option to try to make up for that mistake and they decide daily to not do it.
A vendor with access to your data and that holds your infrastructure potentially hostage is certainly not one that you want to be unable to trust.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Which community?
They are more active than Pertino online...THE community, the one that we are in.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
and mentioning ethics, I'm assuming you're talking about how they promised LMI Free would be free forever.
Technically it was free forever, til the end of the LMI free products life.
LOL I was going to say the same thing. It was free, they didn't make it not free. They simply killed off the product, quote unquote.
But that point is also arguable because if you are a Central user, you get LMI Free to deploy on as machine machines as your Central license allows...
It's all a word game!
-
not that this adds anything to this discussion...but i'm going to look into ZT as a possible Tino reinforcement/replacement.
-
@Dashrender said:
Technically it was free forever, til the end of the LMI free products life.
That's not forever. And it still existed and was STILL called Free. It didn't even stay free to the end of life. It was not killed off.
And what you describe is purely semantics for the purpose of deceiving customers. That's even worse than just not honouring their commitments, that's seriously evil.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A vendor with access to your data and that holds your infrastructure potentially hostage is certainly not one that you want to be unable to trust.
How are they holding your infrastructure potentially hostage? They told everyone they were shutting down, and I'm assuming that they disconnected the endpoints where people choose not to pay. As far as I know LMI isn't preventing anyone from using another vendor to provide this same service.
-
@Dashrender said:
But that point is also arguable because if you are a Central user, you get LMI Free to deploy on as machine machines as your Central license allows...
Exactly, we still have LMI Free right this second and it is in no way free at all.
-
-
@dafyre Well here I am! (Author/founder of ZeroTier)
Reading the above, it seems the issue is active directory DNS. While I know tons about networking, I am not unfortunately an AD expert.
Pertino it seems highjacks DNS. This stuff is in the category of things we want to avoid-- ugly, nasty hacks that fix one thing but likely break everything else. This "enterprise" approach is how Windows networking got in such a bad state to begin with -- in digging into Windows one can see how this or that hack was put in place to make this or that work in an "enterprise" environment, and each hack results in a fractal explosion of edge cases that in turn demand more and more ugly hacks, and so on, until the entire thing becomes the ridiculous ball of garbage that it is today.
But in some cases we have simply been forced to do it. In all such cases we've tried to build such hacks as far from the ZeroTier core as possible. Here's one from WindowsEthernetTap:
https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/blob/master/osdep/WindowsEthernetTap.cpp#L902
So let me explain my understanding of this Windows AD DNS issue:
Windows AD DNS likes to automatically register DNS entries for all adapters in the system. When ZT adapters are added, these can collide with, override, or pollute the DNS space with undesired entries. Is this the problem?
If not, can someone explain the issue in a bit more detail? What precisely is going on under the hood? Maybe we can figure out and document a fix that's more elegant.
-
@adam.ierymenko Welcome aboard! 8-)
-
@adam.ierymenko said:
So let me explain my understanding of this Windows AD DNS issue:
Windows AD DNS likes to automatically register DNS entries for all adapters in the system. When ZT adapters are added, these can collide with, override, or pollute the DNS space with undesired entries. Is this the problem?
Sounds about right.
-
@colliver How are these DNS records "learned?" What is the mechanism? Does the client computer enumerate its interface addresses to AD, or does AD learn them by listening to the network?
Also in the scenario described above:
(1) Is the desire to use the ZeroTier network as the main "company LAN" and run AD over that?
(2) Or is the desire to use ZeroTier for other purposes and keep the main company LAN from getting polluted by its addresses?
These are obviously different use cases. I imagine #1 might actually be easier than #2, but that's a greenfield approach.
-
@adam-ierymenko gets plenty of bonus points for clearly documenting Windows Hacks. 8-)
-
@adam.ierymenko said:
@colliver How are these DNS records "learned?" What is the mechanism? Does the client computer enumerate its interface addresses to AD, or does AD learn them by listening to the network?
Also in the scenario described above:
(1) Is the desire to use the ZeroTier network as the main "company LAN" and run AD over that?
(2) Or is the desire to use ZeroTier for other purposes and keep the main company LAN from getting polluted by its addresses?
These are obviously different use cases. I imagine #1 might actually be easier than #2, but that's a greenfield approach.
I don't use ZeroTier at the moment. I'm pretty sure the AD client sets their own DNS entry when they register with the domain controller (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).
I think @Dashrender was going for option 2 in this case.
-
Hmm... so perhaps the problem is that the AD client is enumerating its addresses and choosing the wrong one. If so, I think the thing to do would be to look into Windows' logic for choosing the "primary" interface and/or AD's logic for choosing which IP address(es) reported by clients to name as their primary.
You would think Windows would be smart enough to set AD DNS to IPs within the IP block managed by AD, but that probably assumes too much.
-
@adam.ierymenko said:
Hmm... so perhaps the problem is that the AD client is enumerating its addresses and choosing the wrong one. If so, I think the thing to do would be to look into Windows' logic for choosing the "primary" interface and/or AD's logic for choosing which IP address(es) reported by clients to name as their primary.
You would think Windows would be smart enough to set AD DNS to IPs within the IP block managed by AD, but that probably assumes too much.
In the past with Pertino we were able to change the default adapter on the Pertino clients to the physical adapter (moving it up in the list). That seemed to fix the issue for us... not sure if that would solve the issue here or not.
-
Hmm... so the question is: how does Windows determine a priority list for adapters and which one is 'default?' Answering that question seems more elegant than highjacking DNS.
-
Root of the problem is that none of these protocols (DNS, AD, DHCP, etc.) were designed for a world in which a client can belong to more than one network.
-
??? Could this perhaps be helpful?
-
@adam.ierymenko said:
??? Could this perhaps be helpful?
Yep, that's what I ended up doing. It worked out for what we needed.
