![]() That the second entry is first, but all I've done is made it a problem for the servers in whatever isn't the first domain. I can also change the suffix search order so I realize the user can opt out of their ISP's unwanted DNS behavior on an individual basis, but for a good sized company that really isn't a viable option for our end users. At that point the client performs no further resolution attempts, having received an "answer", and the user will not be able to access That ISP's DNS will give the client an internet IP as an answer even though it is not authoritative for that domain. In other words, if the client pings server01 on Windows 7 using a VPN connection from that ISP, and server01 resides in , This causes a problem with some users who have certain ISPs (rhymes with Pox) that issue their own responses for failed DNS queries. ![]() If server01 is not in but is in, this will result in the second query going to the ISP's DNS server instead. Instead, with the above example the first DNS query would be sent to the same VPN adapter's primary DNS server as above but the second query is sent to the primary DNS server of the wireless or wired adapter the user isĬonnected with at home. If that was unsuccessful, it would be followed by a query to the same DNS server for. ![]() For example, if the search order was:Īnd the user pinged server01, at first a DNS query to the VPN adapter's primary DNS server would be made for. In Windows XP, when a domain laptop user connected via a 3rd-party IPSEC VPN client from home, and pinged/accessed an unqualified hostname (such as server01) the entire name resolution process, including trying every suffix in the DNS suffix search order, ![]() I've read a whole slew of articles on this issue, but they all dance around the specific issue I am encountering and don't appear to have any relevant solutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |