Internal domain name same as external domain - DNS issues!!
-
no mx records are present on our server at all.
I dont have a problem with the website not working internally (without the www). I'll see if i can convince them next week though! Thanks for your help.Next time, i'll be sure to name it something other than the same domain name!!! sigh
-
@Our-Tech-Team said:
Next time, i'll be sure to name it something other than the same domain name!!! sigh
Current best practice is to use a subdomain, such as ad.yoururl.com. The addition "ad" at the beginning makes it obvious that it is just for AD and that it is not the same domain as anything else.
-
@scottalanmiller noted! lesson learned. thanks again
-
It is a common one, lots of people do that.
-
How is this a brand new problem unless they are a brand new company and new network.
If the while system is that new... It might be worth redoing AD....
As for email, you'll need to setup the needed records for active sync to work inside your network as well.
-
@Dashrender said:
If the while system is that new... It might be worth redoing AD....
Unless it is so new that they have not started using it, is that true? How does age of authentication change the effort in renaming?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If the while system is that new... It might be worth redoing AD....
Unless it is so new that they have not started using it, is that true? How does age of authentication change the effort in renaming?
If they only have one or two servers and a small handful of folders to change permission on.. If you were ever going to do it... Now would be the time.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If the while system is that new... It might be worth redoing AD....
Unless it is so new that they have not started using it, is that true? How does age of authentication change the effort in renaming?
If they only have one or two servers and a small handful of folders to change permission on.. If you were ever going to do it... Now would be the time.
Regardless of how many that is, wouldn't the current state be "all of them?"
-
It will always be all of them... But unless you are at 10 today and plan to never grow.... Then why not do it when you're small.
Are you saying the effort is just never worth it until there is a reason to worry about it? While that can make sense, assuming the effort is around 10 computers. I think the ounce of prevention today is worth it.
Of course if he is so swamped doing other things that makes the company more money, more efficient, etc.... Then he should do those things
-
@Dashrender said:
It will always be all of them... But unless you are at 10 today and plan to never grow.... Then why not do it when you're small.
That doesn't make sense. What if he put it in twenty years ago but was only at ten people today?
You can make an argument, like I did earlier, that if the environment is small enough it might be worth moving now. You could make an argument that if you expect to grow dramatically that it might be worth moving for some reason, although I don't believe that this is true - having to type in www is an easy fix at any scale. But what I don't see is how the age of the environment is a factor. If you are five minutes old and have a million users or twenty years old and have five, it is the number of users, not the age of the environment that determines if the effort might be worth it.
-
@Dashrender said:
Are you saying the effort is just never worth it until there is a reason to worry about it? While that can make sense, assuming the effort is around 10 computers. I think the ounce of prevention today is worth it.
No, just saying that the age of the environment is not a factor. That's a form of the sunk cost fallacy - you are thinking about the means and ignoring the ends. But that doens't work. It's the state of things that determines the value for the future, not "how it got to be this way."
-
While I probably did mention age, most would not fixate on it. As you said the important part is the number of users. Of course the expectation of someone posting here who has a brand new AD would be that they had a million users.
To me this is you being weird, fixating on a wit and not my intent - of course we're in IT and need to be specific.... But I'm posting from my phone, and often don't word things perfectly when doing so.
-
@Dashrender said:
If the while system is that new... It might be worth redoing AD....
How can I not fixate on it, it is the singular component of your point. There is no other factor at all.
-
@Dashrender said:
To me this is you being weird, fixating on a wit and not my intent - of course we're in IT and need to be specific.... But I'm posting from my phone, and often don't word things perfectly when doing so.
Perhaps, but if you had another intent, why did you only say age and not mention the thing that you intended? How am I to hear something that age from what was stated?
-
I'd ask you if you've ever know a new company that had a million users even inside their first year, buy then knowing you, you'd say yes and it would be true
-
@Dashrender said:
I'd ask you if you've ever know a new company that had a million users even inside their first year, buy then knowing you, you'd say yes and it would be true
LOL, of course. A million is a bit much, but I think you are dealing with a string of assumptions, which may be common, but nothing makes them true:
- That companies put in AD when they start up.
- That companies keep AD throughput their lifespans.
- That companies start with ten or fewer staff and grow organically over time.
- That AD is never introduced in the mid-stream of a company life. Or rebuild.
If any one of these four things is not true, and nothing makes any of them necessarily true for any company, then the age of AD would not tell us what we need to know.
-
If you are going by the logic that AD would start small, one could also argue, equally wrong, that if a company has an IT Pro they are already too large to consider rebuilding AD.
-
So for reference, the company is about 5 years old. They have 15 staff and growing (at reasonable pace) was mayhem to control users/passwords/group policies etc. Therefore having just joined the company myself, suggested getting some structure in place and to get the server...so yes, new server - established company.
PS - What settings do I need to do to get the active sync working? I did have this problem on a few computers...I couldn't understand why some worked and some didnt!! The ones that didnt, I changed DNS to Google and that helped autodiscover. then put it all back to DHCP. Which is why I questioned if emails will be okay in the initial post.
-
@Our-Tech-Team said:
So for reference, the company is about 5 years old. They have 15 staff and growing (at reasonable pace) was mayhem to control users/passwords/group policies etc. Therefore having just joined the company myself, suggested getting some structure in place and to get the server...so yes, new server - established company.
That is awfully small, it might be worth putting the users back in manually so that you don't have this issue going into the future. How much do you have depending on Active Directory? This would require creating a whole new AD system and moving people over to it, one by one.
-
@Our-Tech-Team said:
PS - What settings do I need to do to get the active sync working? I did have this problem on a few computers...I couldn't understand why some worked and some didnt!! The ones that didnt, I changed DNS to Google and that helped autodiscover. then put it all back to DHCP. Which is why I questioned if emails will be okay in the initial post.
Everything that you do with your public DNS (the one that Google DNS sees) you need to replicate manually in your own DNS system, always and forever. This is the penalty for having the overlapping names - there is no means for the desktops to talk to the public DNS. So just like you had to put in www manually, you need to do that with every entry.
