I've read a few article on AD-integrated dns zones, including an excellent DNS Stub Zones in Windows Server 2003, but I am still uncertain on grasping the whole picture:
Why didn't AD (Active Directory)-integration provide possibility of secondary zones AD-integration in order to be replicated through AD (vs. why were stub zones were provided with AD-integration possibility)?
Why did not MS provide synchroization for delegated zone records?
I.e there is no granularity and configurability in stub zones (stub zone contain all the NS records for a specified zone)
Added later: Stub zones are similar in functionality to delegation, but stub zones include necessarily references to all dns servers in the referenced domain while delegation not. Is delegation more granular or it unnecessarily requires more administration efforts?
Why do we possibly need secondary zones at all?
if redundancy is provided by multi-master AD-integrated primary zones?
Does multiple AD-integrated master domain controllers provide redundancy against failure of a computer with one of AD-integrated DCs? In other words, does each of domain controllers contain a replica of AD (and AD-integrated dns) databse?
Can't a secondary zone (in case of primary zone computer failure) be copied and one of copy be promoted to primary zone?
- "Also, while most DNS servers can be configured to prevent zone transfers to secondary zones from occurring, stub zones request only SOA, NS, and A records for name servers, all of which are provided without restriction by any name server since these records are essential for name resolution to function properly" -
Does it mean that DNS servers cannot be configured to prevent transfers to stub zones?