I'm looking over a 2003 server that was set up be someone else and found that
the forward lookup zones are not configured the way I'm used to. I'm used to
seeing a subdomain get confugured within the parent domain. So,
east.contoso.com would be created and configured within the contoso.com
(parent) domain.

However, this server has the parent domain (contoso.com) as well as the
child domains (east.contoso.com, west.contoso.com, etc) configured under the
lookup zone. First, is this considered to be incorrect? And second, Is there
a way to move a child domain (east.contoso.com) under the parent
(contoso.com) or do I need to simply rebuild the 'subdomain' and all of its
records?

"gscanga" <gscanga@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3D2B12B8-9A89-49BB-81A1-965EC60F7B7E@microsoft.com...
> I'm looking over a 2003 server that was set up be someone else and found
> that
> the forward lookup zones are not configured the way I'm used to. I'm used
> to
> seeing a subdomain get confugured within the parent domain. So,
> east.contoso.com would be created and configured within the contoso.com
> (parent) domain.

Both are perfectly valid in DNS but configuring a DNS subdomain as
a SEPARATE ZONE allows for the zone to be place don't different
computers than the parent -- especially the parent.

Normally the zones for a domain are held on DNS servers IN that domain
so generally most people are delegating them as (actual) separate zones
rather than mere subdomains.

> However, this server has the parent domain (contoso.com) as well as the
> child domains (east.contoso.com, west.contoso.com, etc) configured under
> the
> lookup zone. First, is this considered to be incorrect? And second, Is
> there
> a way to move a child domain (east.contoso.com) under the parent
> (contoso.com) or do I need to simply rebuild the 'subdomain' and all of
> its
> records?

For a Forest this is going to let you control the replication setings of the
zone more accurately (or granularly): Primary, Secondary, AD Integrated
with scope on the Domain, DNS-DCs of the Domain, or DNS-DCs of
the forest.

It likely makes more sense to separate the zones to parallel AD domains
directly.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)

Thanks for the information Herb,

I guess then, by this logic of greater manageability, the zones have been
set up correctly. My primary reason for asking this is because I'm currently
joined to the sub domain (east.contoso.com) and I can't resolve to the
records that exist on the parent domain (contoso.com). So, my presumption was
that we need to move the subdomain *under* the parent and the requests would
then resolve.

Is my problem of resolving related to the trust relationship?

"gscanga" <gscanga@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BCCE4850-7352-4E41-B446-B14884050F8A@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the information Herb,
>
> I guess then, by this logic of greater manageability, the zones have been
> set up correctly. My primary reason for asking this is because I'm
> currently
> joined to the sub domain (east.contoso.com) and I can't resolve to the
> records that exist on the parent domain (contoso.com).

That is a (almost completely) different question.

You can resolve the parent domain by having a copy of it (secondary etc),
by using a (conditional) forwarder to the DNS servers that hold that zone,
or by using a Stub (like a secondary but copies only essential records to
preserve WAN bandwidth etc.)

> So, my presumption was
> that we need to move the subdomain *under* the parent and the requests
> would
> then resolve.

No. You have to arrange for the child domain DNS server to be able to
FIND the parent zone through one of the methods above.

> Is my problem of resolving related to the trust relationship?

No. DNS resolution has nothing to with trusts or permissions of any kind.

(Only secure UPDATES are related to permissions for DNS.)


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)

OK, I see. Of the 3 options that you've mentioned, which would be best suited
for our configuration?

Our parent zone and the child zone exist on the same server (both zones are
AD- Integrated). I also know that the parent zone has very few records (less
than a dozen).

"gscanga" <gscanga@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9FA5C575-DA0C-481A-9741-D6E1DDA29913@microsoft.com...
> OK, I see. Of the 3 options that you've mentioned, which would be best
> suited
> for our configuration?

In many case there is little to recommend one over the others.

Use the conditional forwarding if you have Win2003 DNS servers,
but you only have the "hold a Secondary for the root" if you are running
Win2000 DNS.

> Our parent zone and the child zone exist on the same server (both zones
> are
> AD- Integrated). I also know that the parent zone has very few records
> (less
> than a dozen).

You can also use "AD Integrated" with "Forest wide Scope" if you have
ALL Win2003 DCs.

This is my favorite for reasonable size domains/zones.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)