1

I have a NetApp Data Ontap 8.3 SP1 with 4 LIF. LIF1 - 192.168.0.1 LIF2 - 192.168.0.2 LIF3 - 192.168.0.3 LIF3 - 192.168.0.4

There is a SVM, configured as NAPP0 and joined to an Active Directory domain( ad-domain.local) associated to LIF1 and in use.

In ADUC there is the relative computer account, in DNS exists both A record and PTR record for napp0 --> 192.168.0.1

Now I need to configure onbox dns load balancing; Easy task, create a DNS Zone delegation etc. (as per https://kb.netapp.com/support/index?page=content&id=1013801 ) BUT.... management asked me to use NAPP0 as the dns zone name......

What if I delete A record and PTR record for NAPP0, subsequently creating a zone delegation for NAPP0.AD-DOMAIN.LOCAL pointing to IPs(.1 .2 .3 .4) leaving AD Computer object intact?

6
  • Are you having issues delegating napp0.addomain.local or is filer.napp0.ad-domain.local not resolving.
    – Jim B
    Nov 24, 2015 at 16:20
  • I am not an expert with this- I don't have it at my shop, but the way I remember it working, I think you're supposed to have a separate DNS entry for each individual LIF, and you can either use one of those or create one that's not a potential delegate just for joining the domain.
    – Basil
    Nov 24, 2015 at 20:13
  • @Jim B no delegating a zone in dns is not a problem , I fear that delegating napp0.ad-domain.local to ontap controller would disrupt active directory access for the appliance, as its registered in AD with a computer account name of Napp0 ...
    – Roberto
    Nov 24, 2015 at 20:31
  • @Basil yes i could do that, delegating round robin To dns server itself, but I need to have ontap doing that, as per management request... Unfortunately I cannot test in a lab environment ...
    – Roberto
    Nov 24, 2015 at 20:34
  • @Roberto, yes of course delegating the name (that would now be a zone) would disrupt access - that's what you said was a condition set on you by management. You have been boxed in to where the netapp will be inaccessible due to whomever your management is, by insisting on a special zone name that exactly conflicts with the existing name
    – Jim B
    Nov 25, 2015 at 0:13

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .