I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to "allow
zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of opinion as
to how this should be configured. My question is:
Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
secondary and vice versa with the secondary, pointing to themselves as
primary and the partner as the secondary?

thanks,

RHS

"RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C20C6A4E-34BD-49AA-AA2B-A216A15657DD@microsoft.com...
>I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
> Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to
> "allow
> zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
> I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
> previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of opinion
> as
> to how this should be configured. My question is:
> Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
> secondary and vice versa with the secondary,

NO. That is a problem solving technique needed in some
(VERY) rare instances and propagated as (incorrect)
general advice by those who don't understand such recommendations
were MERELY to solve certain temporary problems.

> pointing to themselves as
> primary and the partner as the secondary?

This is almost always correct if your network and replication
is already functioning.

In fact, you generally NEVER point both to the opposite but
even in the case of "fixing a replication problem" you point them
both at the Primary (or favored Master) long enough to get
every one registered in the SAME DNS server database.

And one more thing: You don't point DNS clients to a "primary"
or "secondary" but you set a PREFERRED and perhaps an
ALTERNATE on the NIC->IP Properties.


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

Herb, network and replication are already functioning so if I understand
correctly
I should do the following:

On the Primary:
Primary: point to itself
Secondary: point to the secondary

On the Secondary:
Primary: point to itself
Secondary: point to the secondary (which is the Primary)

And in DHCP, just configure for both IP's....Primary and Secondary.

Am I correct with that?

RHS


"Herb Martin" wrote:

> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C20C6A4E-34BD-49AA-AA2B-A216A15657DD@microsoft.com...
> >I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
> > Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to
> > "allow
> > zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
> > I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
> > previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of opinion
> > as
> > to how this should be configured. My question is:
> > Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
> > secondary and vice versa with the secondary,
>
> NO. That is a problem solving technique needed in some
> (VERY) rare instances and propagated as (incorrect)
> general advice by those who don't understand such recommendations
> were MERELY to solve certain temporary problems.
>
> > pointing to themselves as
> > primary and the partner as the secondary?
>
> This is almost always correct if your network and replication
> is already functioning.
>
> In fact, you generally NEVER point both to the opposite but
> even in the case of "fixing a replication problem" you point them
> both at the Primary (or favored Master) long enough to get
> every one registered in the SAME DNS server database.
>
> And one more thing: You don't point DNS clients to a "primary"
> or "secondary" but you set a PREFERRED and perhaps an
> ALTERNATE on the NIC->IP Properties.
>
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> Accelerated MCSE
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> [phone number on web site]
>
>
>

"RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0A0FDFE2-E61A-48A4-93F0-62416AF4A9BC@microsoft.com...
> Herb, network and replication are already functioning so if I understand
> correctly
> I should do the following:
>
> On the Primary:
> Primary: point to itself
> Secondary: point to the secondary
>
> On the Secondary:
> Primary: point to itself
> Secondary: point to the secondary (which is the Primary)
>
> And in DHCP, just configure for both IP's....Primary and Secondary.
>
> Am I correct with that?

You would be if you would use the correct terms which are
NOT SO CONFUSING. There is a good reason for getting
the terms right, beyond just being picky or pedantic.

Both servers should use:
Preferred: Itself
Alternate: It's partner (nearest partner if more than one available)

Clients should use either as Preferred and Alternate.
Preferably having half the clients use each as Preferred
and the other as Alternat IF there are a large number of
clients and some easy way to do that.

If there is a distinction the clients should use the "closest" as
Preferred.

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

>
> RHS
>
>
> "Herb Martin" wrote:
>
>> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C20C6A4E-34BD-49AA-AA2B-A216A15657DD@microsoft.com...
>> >I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
>> > Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to
>> > "allow
>> > zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
>> > I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
>> > previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of
>> > opinion
>> > as
>> > to how this should be configured. My question is:
>> > Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
>> > secondary and vice versa with the secondary,
>>
>> NO. That is a problem solving technique needed in some
>> (VERY) rare instances and propagated as (incorrect)
>> general advice by those who don't understand such recommendations
>> were MERELY to solve certain temporary problems.
>>
>> > pointing to themselves as
>> > primary and the partner as the secondary?
>>
>> This is almost always correct if your network and replication
>> is already functioning.
>>
>> In fact, you generally NEVER point both to the opposite but
>> even in the case of "fixing a replication problem" you point them
>> both at the Primary (or favored Master) long enough to get
>> every one registered in the SAME DNS server database.
>>
>> And one more thing: You don't point DNS clients to a "primary"
>> or "secondary" but you set a PREFERRED and perhaps an
>> ALTERNATE on the NIC->IP Properties.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
>> Accelerated MCSE
>> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
>> [phone number on web site]
>>
>>
>>

Thanks Herb. You're right, my mistake.....on the server is does list them as
Preferred and Alternate.

Thanks much for the .

RHS

"Herb Martin" wrote:

> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0A0FDFE2-E61A-48A4-93F0-62416AF4A9BC@microsoft.com...
> > Herb, network and replication are already functioning so if I understand
> > correctly
> > I should do the following:
> >
> > On the Primary:
> > Primary: point to itself
> > Secondary: point to the secondary
> >
> > On the Secondary:
> > Primary: point to itself
> > Secondary: point to the secondary (which is the Primary)
> >
> > And in DHCP, just configure for both IP's....Primary and Secondary.
> >
> > Am I correct with that?
>
> You would be if you would use the correct terms which are
> NOT SO CONFUSING. There is a good reason for getting
> the terms right, beyond just being picky or pedantic.
>
> Both servers should use:
> Preferred: Itself
> Alternate: It's partner (nearest partner if more than one available)
>
> Clients should use either as Preferred and Alternate.
> Preferably having half the clients use each as Preferred
> and the other as Alternat IF there are a large number of
> clients and some easy way to do that.
>
> If there is a distinction the clients should use the "closest" as
> Preferred.
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> Accelerated MCSE
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> [phone number on web site]
>
> >
> > RHS
> >
> >
> > "Herb Martin" wrote:
> >
> >> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:C20C6A4E-34BD-49AA-AA2B-A216A15657DD@microsoft.com...
> >> >I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
> >> > Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to
> >> > "allow
> >> > zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
> >> > I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
> >> > previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of
> >> > opinion
> >> > as
> >> > to how this should be configured. My question is:
> >> > Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
> >> > secondary and vice versa with the secondary,
> >>
> >> NO. That is a problem solving technique needed in some
> >> (VERY) rare instances and propagated as (incorrect)
> >> general advice by those who don't understand such recommendations
> >> were MERELY to solve certain temporary problems.
> >>
> >> > pointing to themselves as
> >> > primary and the partner as the secondary?
> >>
> >> This is almost always correct if your network and replication
> >> is already functioning.
> >>
> >> In fact, you generally NEVER point both to the opposite but
> >> even in the case of "fixing a replication problem" you point them
> >> both at the Primary (or favored Master) long enough to get
> >> every one registered in the SAME DNS server database.
> >>
> >> And one more thing: You don't point DNS clients to a "primary"
> >> or "secondary" but you set a PREFERRED and perhaps an
> >> ALTERNATE on the NIC->IP Properties.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> >> Accelerated MCSE
> >> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> >> [phone number on web site]
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

"RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B08DFBE6-5B86-4C40-8D33-7127E25BBD45@microsoft.com...
> Thanks Herb. You're right, my mistake.....on the server is does list them
> as
> Preferred and Alternate.
>

You're welcome.

It's a pet peeve of mine -- because using the other words
leads to much confusion for those new to DNS.

Clients don't really know or care about Primary/Secondary;
those are server side (ONLY) terms.

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

> Thanks much for the .
>
> RHS
>
> "Herb Martin" wrote:
>
>> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:0A0FDFE2-E61A-48A4-93F0-62416AF4A9BC@microsoft.com...
>> > Herb, network and replication are already functioning so if I
>> > understand
>> > correctly
>> > I should do the following:
>> >
>> > On the Primary:
>> > Primary: point to itself
>> > Secondary: point to the secondary
>> >
>> > On the Secondary:
>> > Primary: point to itself
>> > Secondary: point to the secondary (which is the Primary)
>> >
>> > And in DHCP, just configure for both IP's....Primary and Secondary.
>> >
>> > Am I correct with that?
>>
>> You would be if you would use the correct terms which are
>> NOT SO CONFUSING. There is a good reason for getting
>> the terms right, beyond just being picky or pedantic.
>>
>> Both servers should use:
>> Preferred: Itself
>> Alternate: It's partner (nearest partner if more than one
>> available)
>>
>> Clients should use either as Preferred and Alternate.
>> Preferably having half the clients use each as Preferred
>> and the other as Alternat IF there are a large number of
>> clients and some easy way to do that.
>>
>> If there is a distinction the clients should use the "closest" as
>> Preferred.
>>
>> --
>> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
>> Accelerated MCSE
>> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
>> [phone number on web site]
>>
>> >
>> > RHS
>> >
>> >
>> > "Herb Martin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> "RHS" <RHS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:C20C6A4E-34BD-49AA-AA2B-A216A15657DD@microsoft.com...
>> >> >I just added a second DNS server to the network (both Win2k servers).
>> >> > Before I installed DNS on the secondary, I had the option checked to
>> >> > "allow
>> >> > zone transfers" and everything came up fine on the secondary.
>> >> > I guess I can assume that it's ready to go. I've looked through some
>> >> > previous posts on the subject and there seems to be differences of
>> >> > opinion
>> >> > as
>> >> > to how this should be configured. My question is:
>> >> > Do I point the primary to itself as primary and the secondary to the
>> >> > secondary and vice versa with the secondary,
>> >>
>> >> NO. That is a problem solving technique needed in some
>> >> (VERY) rare instances and propagated as (incorrect)
>> >> general advice by those who don't understand such recommendations
>> >> were MERELY to solve certain temporary problems.
>> >>
>> >> > pointing to themselves as
>> >> > primary and the partner as the secondary?
>> >>
>> >> This is almost always correct if your network and replication
>> >> is already functioning.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, you generally NEVER point both to the opposite but
>> >> even in the case of "fixing a replication problem" you point them
>> >> both at the Primary (or favored Master) long enough to get
>> >> every one registered in the SAME DNS server database.
>> >>
>> >> And one more thing: You don't point DNS clients to a "primary"
>> >> or "secondary" but you set a PREFERRED and perhaps an
>> >> ALTERNATE on the NIC->IP Properties.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
>> >> Accelerated MCSE
>> >> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
>> >> [phone number on web site]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>