Domain Controllers certainly need to have their hostnames registered in the AD 
domain, but regular domain-joined members do *not*. We've been running AD for 
decades, without registering members in the AD domain. Works fine. Instead, we 
get our (non-Microsoft) DHCP servers to register dynamic clients automatically 
in a vendor-agnostic zone hosted on BIND (actually, Infoblox running modified 
BIND under the covers), and servers, whether Windows or not, get manually 
registered in various vendor-agnostic zones. The only hostnames in our AD 
domain are the Domain Controllers, and those hostnames are redundant with what 
exists in the vendor-agnostic zones. The reverse records point back to the 
vendor-agnostic-zone names.

Microsoft calls this architecture a "disjoint namespace", which is slightly 
derogatory. According to 
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/identity/ad-ds/plan/disjoint-namespace,
 disjoint namespaces are "more complex" (which is rich, coming from Microsoft, 
inventor of aging, scavenging and "tombstone records" for their DNS) and cites 
various caveats and disadvantages. But it's fully supported. I just had a word 
with one of our AD experts, and he reminded me that, with a disjoint namespace, 
you need to take some care to define the "disjointed" namespaces as being 
authorized for SPN generation (we did that a long time ago, and I had forgotten 
that step). But that's one of the few "gotchas" associated with disjoint 
namespaces.

                                                                                
                                        - Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: bind-users <bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org> On Behalf Of Grant Taylor 
via bind-users
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:35 AM
To: bind-users@lists.isc.org
Subject: Re: DNS can be a subdomain

On 06/26/2018 10:21 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> And if you are not using AD you can use SIG(0) and KEY records to 
> allow hosts to authenticate updates to the DNS for their own records.

I'm not quite following.  Do you mean that you can allow hosts to update their 
own RRs without requiring AD and using SIG(0) as an alternative?

Or are you saying forego AD (and Kerberos) and use SIG(0) instead?

#confused

> Instead of registering a host with AD you add a KEY record into the 
> DNS which has the public key of the host which is to be used to sign 
> the UPDATE requests.

If you're using AD for (presumably) Windows networking (and all that
entails) you very likely want the workstations to be registered with AD. 
  The machine trust accounts are pertinent to AD's operation and the 
workstation's ability to access AD resources when users aren't logged in.

#stillConfused

> Unfortunately OS developers have been asleep at the wheel by not 
> adding support for this to their products.

I'm seeing more and more references to SIG(0) in the last couple of weeks.  I 
think I need to refresh myself on it.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

Reply via email to