FQDN?

In article <OoJKLxIMKHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
aceman@mvps.RemoveThisPart.org says...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "Brian Cryer" <not.here@localhost> wrote in message
> news:%232zfl5FMKHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > "MAC" <MAC@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C6E56992-3B9A-45AF-AFEA-13BFE634F8E3@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >> I've been a hobbyist server operator for a few years and always used the
> >> "blabla.local" server name through each version. Well I want to move to
> >> "blabla.com" now for the server 2008 installation. At some point I'll
> >> have an
> >> internal website and will also host an internet site. Are there any
> >> reasons I
> >> wouldn't want to create the ".com" domain name?
> >>
> >> I realize the question illustrates just how little I know about the
> >> process,
> >> but I only learn enough throughout the years to accomplish what I need
> >> for my
> >> specific purposes.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > Been there, done that, wouldn't advise it.
> >
> > Stick with blabla.local, it won't stop you hosting a .com (or any other)
> > website.
> >
> > The problem with calling your domain blabla.com is that you can hit a
> > problem with domain name resolution - especially if you have anyone
> > external trying to VPN to your server. I'd strongly advise sticking with
> > .local to avoid some headache further down the line.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>
> I have a customer with a split zone and have no problems with VPN when I had
> them initially setup using Microsoft PPTP or after I switched them to Cisco
> VPN. Externally, the VPN client uses the currently configured external DNS
> to find the host, then it connects and uses the internal DNS (the VPN
> becomes the default interface) to access internal resources, authenticate,
> etc. So not sure what you mean by VPN issues.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I use WatchGuard firewalls and don't have any issues with name
resolution while doing VPN's either.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

In article <uHiOjEIMKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
savatovic@nospam.gmail.com says...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

And so it would appear that MS agrees with me - to not use your public
doman name as your internal domain name - their choice is to use a sub-
domain of the public domain name.

They also say that using a different on-public domain name is approved,
but requires more maintenance.

So, it appears, if you use the subdomain, you will have to manage your
DNS internally and externally as with not using .com/.net....

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2510386b2a239007989e8f@us.news.astraweb.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> In article <uHiOjEIMKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> savatovic@nospam.gmail.com says...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>>
>> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> And so it would appear that MS agrees with me - to not use your public
> doman name as your internal domain name - their choice is to use a sub-
> domain of the public domain name.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not quite.
The whole discussion here was .local vs .com
Since the beginning you were rejecting the idea of using .com for internal
namespace as if it is forbidden.
In your first post you stated

<quote>
Never name your internal domain a .com or other TLD, it's not needed and
it's a bad idea.
....
</quote>

To which I responded that it is OK.

The link I posted gives three options:

a) The internal domain is a subdomain of the external domain (for example
external: contoso.com, internal: private.contoso.com. Microsoft strongly
recommends this option.

The internal and external domain names are different from each other (for
example external:contoso.com, internal:contoso.local).

c) Same name for the internal domain and the external domain. This method is
not recommended by Microsoft.

All the time I was saying that .com is a valid option, although the
subdomain of the external domain is the most strongly recommended option.
And as I said before, if done properly this option is viable
<quote from MS>
This method requires additional configuration to enable optimized
performance.
</quote from MS>


<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> They also say that using a different on-public domain name is approved,
> but requires more maintenance.
>
> So, it appears, if you use the subdomain, you will have to manage your
> DNS internally and externally as with not using .com/.net....
>
> --
> You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
> voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
> Trust yourself.
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

In article <eee#JhJMKHA.1452@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
savatovic@nospam.gmail.com says...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2510386b2a239007989e8f@us.news.astraweb.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > In article <uHiOjEIMKHA.1232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> > savatovic@nospam.gmail.com says...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >>
> >> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > And so it would appear that MS agrees with me - to not use your public
> > doman name as your internal domain name - their choice is to use a sub-
> > domain of the public domain name.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Not quite.
> The whole discussion here was .local vs .com
> Since the beginning you were rejecting the idea of using .com for internal
> namespace as if it is forbidden.
> In your first post you stated
>
> <quote>
> Never name your internal domain a .com or other TLD, it's not needed and
> it's a bad idea.
> ...
> </quote>
>
> To which I responded that it is OK.
>
> The link I posted gives three options:
>
> a) The internal domain is a subdomain of the external domain (for example
> external: contoso.com, internal: private.contoso.com. Microsoft strongly
> recommends this option.
>
> The internal and external domain names are different from each other (for
> example external:contoso.com, internal:contoso.local).
>
> c) Same name for the internal domain and the external domain. This method is
> not recommended by Microsoft.
>
> All the time I was saying that .com is a valid option, although the
> subdomain of the external domain is the most strongly recommended option.
> And as I said before, if done properly this option is viable
> <quote from MS>
> This method requires additional configuration to enable optimized
> performance.
> </quote from MS><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

How about we agree to disagree on using .com/.net for internal name
spaces?

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)