5 ms·
The problem is that Samba 4 has to deal with them, since it will look them up in ldb, and if they're not there, forward them. I guess it doesn't blindly pass re
by amaccuish 8y ago
The problem is that Samba 4 has to deal with them, since it will look them up in ldb, and if they're not there, forward them. I guess it doesn't blindly pass records through that it can't look up in LDAP.
As a side note, although I love AD DNS, MS are so slow to add new record support. I still can't add SSHFP records to Samba. :(
- gerdesj 8y agoYou don't have to use the built in DNS server in Samba. You can use BIND - https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/BIND9_DLZ_DNS_Back_End https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/BIND9_DLZ_DNS_Back_End and https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Changing_the_DNS_Back_End_of_a_Samba_AD_DC https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Changing_the_DNS_Back_End_o...
- amaccuish 8y agoYe, I find the inbuilt one more reliable, and i've seen a ppt which says bind_dlz is a horrible hack and they'll stop it at some point. Also that doesn't affect what record types can be stored and manipulated in AD.
- gerdesj 8y agoI've seen a similar thing ("and they'll stop it at some point"). If you need DNS functionality beyond the Samba implementation then I would suggest having a separate BIND or PDNS server that all clients point at and that collates the DNS view that you wish them to have. A GPO will get them to update records on your Samba DNS and your PDNS or BIND or whatever can do the rest.
- amaccuish 8y agoNice thinking. I'll give that a think, thanks!
- marcosdumay 8y agoThat makes sense. In theory LDAP is also an opaque key-value registry, but in practice Windows AD is so perverted that one has to interpret everything there. I can understand how Samba had no other option. Still, it's hard to blame this one on DNS complexity.
- amaccuish 8y agoYe I guess from their point of view, they don't want to start diverging from Microsoft, which means they're frequently restricted to what Microsoft does.