Is there any limit for " Append DNS Suffix" ?

[nadeemzaki]

Hi All,

I am wondering if any one knows that, Is there any limit for " Append
DNS Suffix" ?

I have too many domains in my org and have added these domain in the
DNS Suffix list. Issue I am facing is, it works perfect for the hosts
in the higher order DNS domain ( top 5), but if I try to search (
nslookup) any host in the lower order domain ( below 5) it fails. Also,
if we move the lower order domain in top 5 DNS Suffix, it works.

I have tried this on windows 2000 & XP, both are showing same
behaviour.

Anyone else facing this issue ?

Thanks in advance.
Windows Guy !

 

[Kevin D. Goodknecht Sr. [MVP]]

Hi All,

I am wondering if any one knows that, Is there any limit for "
Append DNS Suffix" ?

Nslookup Does Not Work Correctly When You Use a Search Order of Seven or
More Domain Suffixes
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;818349

 

[Herb Martin]

Hi All,

I am wondering if any one knows that, Is there any limit for " Append
DNS Suffix" ?

I have too many domains in my org and have added these domain in the
DNS Suffix list. Issue I am facing is, it works perfect for the hosts
in the higher order DNS domain ( top 5), but if I try to search (
nslookup) any host in the lower order domain ( below 5) it fails. Also,
if we move the lower order domain in top 5 DNS Suffix, it works.

I have tried this on windows 2000 & XP, both are showing same
behaviour.

Anyone else facing this issue ?

Kevin gave you the "real answer" but notice that having a large number
of suffixes is generally a poor practice AND only prevent some typing.

It in no way makes DNS "really work" but rather allows users to type
base computer names without the suffix.

And it makes resolution failure slower when they mistype a name,
as well as adding to the possibility of name clashes due to both
duplicate names and similar (but mistyped) names.

 

[Kurt]

If you don't have duplicate names and don't have too many commonly accessed
hostnames, you could add CNAMEs in the local domains pointing to the others.

....kurt

Hi All,

I am wondering if any one knows that, Is there any limit for " Append
DNS Suffix" ?

I have too many domains in my org and have added these domain in the
DNS Suffix list. Issue I am facing is, it works perfect for the hosts
in the higher order DNS domain ( top 5), but if I try to search (
nslookup) any host in the lower order domain ( below 5) it fails. Also,
if we move the lower order domain in top 5 DNS Suffix, it works.

I have tried this on windows 2000 & XP, both are showing same
behaviour.

Anyone else facing this issue ?

Kevin gave you the "real answer" but notice that having a large number
of suffixes is generally a poor practice AND only prevent some typing.

It in no way makes DNS "really work" but rather allows users to type
base computer names without the suffix.

And it makes resolution failure slower when they mistype a name,
as well as adding to the possibility of name clashes due to both
duplicate names and similar (but mistyped) names.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
Accelerated MCSE
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
[phone number on web site]

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

Hi All,

I am wondering if any one knows that, Is there any limit for "
Append DNS Suffix" ?

I have too many domains in my org and have added these domain in the
DNS Suffix list. Issue I am facing is, it works perfect for the hosts
in the higher order DNS domain ( top 5), but if I try to search (
nslookup) any host in the lower order domain ( below 5) it fails.
Also, if we move the lower order domain in top 5 DNS Suffix, it
works.

I have tried this on windows 2000 & XP, both are showing same
behaviour.

Anyone else facing this issue ?

Thanks in advance.
Windows Guy !

How is your DNS infrastructure configured? Are you using delegations from
the parent to the child with a forwarder back to the parent? Are you using
WINS?

If the answer is yes to both of the above, then I really don't see the need
to place all those suffixes for the other child domains in each because this
configuration will resolve the whole infrastructure cleanly.

What was the original reason behind creating all of them?

--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.

If this post is viewed at a non-Microsoft community website, and you were to
respond to it through that community's website, I may not see your reply
unless that website posts replies back to the original Microsoft forum.
Therefore, please direct all replies ONLY to the Microsoft public newsgroup
this thread originated in so all can benefit or ensure the web community
posts it back to the original forum.

Ace Fekay, MCSE 2003 & 2000, MCSA 2003 & 2000, MCSE+I, MCT, MVP
Microsoft MVP - Windows Server Directory Services
Microsoft Certified Trainer
Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations.
=================================

 

[nadeemzaki]

Kevin -- Thanks for url.

Herb -- You are right, "large number of suffixes is generally a poor
practice AND only prevent some typing", but when we have +1000 servers
in +50 domains, it is really hard to remember FQDN for all servers.

Ace -- We don't have control on DNS Structure. This is part of
core-engg team. The main reason to have add DNS suffix as said earlier,
we have +1000 servers in +50 domains.

I hope the DNS team will soon comes up with proper DNS fwd /
replication to resolve this issue.

Thanks for all your replies.

Muhammad.

 

[Herb Martin]

Kevin -- Thanks for url.

Herb -- You are right, "large number of suffixes is generally a poor
practice AND only prevent some typing", but when we have +1000 servers
in +50 domains, it is really hard to remember FQDN for all servers.

Ace -- We don't have control on DNS Structure. This is part of
core-engg team. The main reason to have add DNS suffix as said earlier,
we have +1000 servers in +50 domains.

You might have mentioned that <grin>

And having that many domains (which trust each other, or which have
users with multiple accounts to access all those resources) is likely
even worse.

With this many servers/domains, it's not only difficult to remember
which domain, but even WHICH SERVER has the needed resources.

Maybe the best answers include:

1) Unified WINS Server database replication (for browsing)

2) Some web pages with links to critical servers

Possibly a unified DFS structure would help if we are talking
about SMB (file) shares.

I hope the DNS team will soon comes up with proper DNS fwd /
replication to resolve this issue.

Actually that is the part that is likely independent. If you don't have
the Fwd/Replication correct then the Suffixes will NOT work.

Each DNS client must point STRICTLY at the local DNS server (set)
which can resolve ALL needed DNS names.

DNS clients expect that ALL (of their) DNS Servers will return the
same answers and so you must NOT use a mix of local/remote/Internet/
etc. DNS servers in the CLIENT DNS properties.

This is part of what I meant by writing that suffixes do NOT assist
in the actual resolution.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

Actually that is the part that is likely independent. If you don't
have the Fwd/Replication correct then the Suffixes will NOT work.

Each DNS client must point STRICTLY at the local DNS server (set)
which can resolve ALL needed DNS names.

DNS clients expect that ALL (of their) DNS Servers will return the
same answers and so you must NOT use a mix of local/remote/Internet/
etc. DNS servers in the CLIENT DNS properties.

This is part of what I meant by writing that suffixes do NOT assist
in the actual resolution.

Good point Herb. I hope he can get his DNS group to straighten out their DNS
resolution infrastructure.

Ace

 

[Herb Martin]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]"

In

Good point Herb. I hope he can get his DNS group to straighten out their
DNS resolution infrastructure.

Well you know my working theory: Most problems are easy to solve; finding
them is the hard part, and is made easy by clearly identifying the actual
symptoms
and explictly stating the problem.

I think there is an Alice in Wonderland metaphor about "Where do you want
to go?" (If you don't know it doesn't much matter which way you travel.

 

[Ace Fekay [MVP]]

In

Well you know my working theory: Most problems are easy to solve;
finding them is the hard part, and is made easy by clearly
identifying the actual symptoms
and explictly stating the problem.

I think there is an Alice in Wonderland metaphor about "Where do you
want to go?" (If you don't know it doesn't much matter which way you
travel.

Interesting way of looking at it.

 

[Herb Martin]

"Ace Fekay [MVP]"

In

Interesting way of looking at it.

Highly EFFECTIVE too. <grin>