Networks

Ask something
Discussion Locked

DNS Namespace

0 helpful
8 replies

by edlockett

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Greetings all,
Here is an intriguing topic - We have a client whose network was set up, it seems, by a bit of a cowboy. There are numerous flaws in the configuration of different aspects of their IT infrastructure.

The one I would like to discuss is the DNS name chosen for their Windows Server 2003 domain. The name in use is companyname.local.com ..!

The person who entered this into the wizard must have been having one of those uncertainty moments. Unsure as to whether to use .com or .local , he chose a happy medium and used both. At this point it's useful to point out that the company in question does not own the domains companyname.com or local.com or have any affiliation with them. I think this is quite possibly one of the silliest single misconfigurations I have ever seen.

It is only a simple branch office network with about 10 local users. The name does not seem to affect their ability to conduct internal communications, nor to access external web sites. No internal resources are directly accessible from the public Internet, and the domain is not part of a larger hierarchy. However, I have already thought of a couple of reasons as to why this is an extremely bad idea. It is obviously not at all a best practice.

Interestingly enough, it appears the owners of local.com have configured their DNS so that anythingyoulike.local.com resolves to one of their servers.

So I would like any input on what consequences could arise for the business due to using such a name for their Windows domain. There is a large IT strategy report being produced, covering their entire operation. This will be a small part of that report, but I wanted to see what other ideas people could come up with and if there's any areas I hadn't thought of. I would be interested to discuss any constructive points.

8 replies

by the 'g-man.'

For an internal domain name - none.

It is best practice to own your internal domain names public equivilent but not mandatory unless you plan to host public servers using the same namespace.

Besides, with only 10 users it would be easy to change the domain name seeing as it is windows 2003 sever you are using.

Non Issue it seems - just Ctrl+V this in to your report.

by edlockett

Hello again, and thanks for your contribution.

What you say is correct, of course. I was wondering if we could think of any scenarios where something really bad *could* happen. No matter how small the possibility, there is maybe some security risk that might rear its head under certain circumstances?

by the 'g-man.'

on the number of servers involved. I would advise against using the Domain Rename tool as it can be very flakey. If it is just the one migrate to a new system (if possible). Also depends on what else is running on that server.

by nickysam74

The DNS namespace begins with a logical root domain that is not named, partly because it is implicit in all DNS names. The root domain in turn contains a limited number of subdomains that help organize the DNS namespace. ============== nickysam

by edlockett

I would like to get involved with some discussion on this issue. Are there any people out there with something to say?

by the 'g-man.'

By adding this you begin to sound a bit desperate. You have already said it is for a report so do some of your own investigations as well.

That and this is a US site so the masses post when you are away home or back in your box.

Give it some time. While waiting perhaps locate a monkey or similar primate. Give it a short slap or spank (even) to pass the hours.

by edlockett

Yes, the entire point of adding more posts is to ensure that the discussion is still on the page when people stateside log in.

I have already done the research I want to do and written the report. While I might add to it if I feel there would be a benefit, what I actually want is to be stimulated by some discussion!

It seems the community is not understanding the concept... They are called "discussion forums", are they not?

I don't need to rely on other people's help in order to do my job or finish some assignment. I don't really need your advice on how to use a discussion forum, or your puerile suggestions on how to pass the time. I'd like to communicate with some intelligent individuals!

Do you not have anything more interesting to do other than try to wind me up?

by the 'g-man.'

And you provide such great responses.

That and you never responded to my more
information above in the thread. Shocked as
while up there part of me that thought we
were actually about to engage in a
discussion.

This discussion is closed to new replies.