Domain.local versus

  • From: "Jeff Bushberg" <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:37:41 -0800




Thank you for the well thought out explanation. My existing network

Is a .local and is a small company 10 on site users and 40 remote exchange
only users.

and I plan to use some of the exchange 2003 features rpc over http

the new push technology on sp2 for mobile devices and file sharing with

I will be setting up a certificate server and have concerns about the
unknown issues

that may arise with users on the outside resolving to exchange with a public

domain name via public dns and users on the inside resolving to a .local

via private dns. Usually when I set this up I used your option 1 and it has
worked fine, 

by me  updating the public DNS with the proper mx and and then updating the

dns with any external www addresses. My first thought is to run dcpromo and

the .local to a .com



Thanks Jeff



From: ChongJa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ChongJa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:09 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Domain.local versus


Here are your 3 options for DNS namespace planning, advantages and
disadvantages of each. 

Option #1:  Same internal and external DNS domain name.  The 
administrator(s) maintain entirely separate DNS implementations (no zone 
transfers, etc.), where the internal AD/DNS domain has manually configured 
static records (web, mail, etc..) to get to frequently used IP hosts in the 
public DNS zone of the same name (currently most likely provided by your 
ISP, unless you are a very large company).  The private AD/DNS zone is 
protected inside the network perimeter and is used to support the internal 
AD.  This is known as "shadow DNS", "split DNS", split-brain DNS, or 
split-horizon DNS. 

1) Security.  Each DNS zone is authoritative for the zone of that name so 
therefore the external DNS zone and internal AD/DNS zone will NOT replicate 
with each other thereby prevent internal company records to be visible to 
the outside Internet. 
2) Short namespace.  Users don't have to type in (or see) a long domain name

when accessing company resources either internally or externally.  Names are


1) Any changes made to the public DNS zone (such as the addition or removal 
of an important IP host such as a web server, mail server, or VPN server) 
must added manually to the internal AD/DNS zone if internal users will be 
accessing these hosts from inside the network perimeter (a common 
2) VPN resolution is problematic at best.  Company users accessing the 
network from the Internet will easily be able to reach IP hosts in the 
public DNS zone but will not easily reach internal company resources inside 
the network perimeter without special (and manual) workarounds such as 
maintaining hosts files on their machines (which must be manually updated as

well everytime there is a change to an important IP host in the public 
zone), or they must use special VPN software (usually expensive). 

For further reading on this scenario: 


Option #2:  Delegated subdomain.  This is subdomain of the public DNS zone. 
For example, and 

1) Like Scenario 1, this method also isolates the internal company network 
but note this at the same time is also a disadvantage (see below). 
2) Better than Scenario 1, internal company (Active Directory) clients can 
resolve external resources in the public DNS zone easily, once proper DNS 
name resolution mechanism such as forwarding, secondary zones, or delegation

zones are set up. 
3) Better than Scenario 1, DNS records for the public DNS zone do not need 
to be manually duplicated into the internal AD/DNS zone. 
4) Better than Scenario 1, VPN clients accessing the internal company 
network from the Internet can easily navigate into the internal subdomain. 
It is very reliable as long as the VPN stays connected. 

1) While there is security in an isolated subdomain, there is a limited 
potential for exposure to outside attack.  The potential for exposure of 
internal company resources to the outside world, lies mainly in the fact 
that because when the public zone DNS servers receives a query for, they will return the addresses of the 
internal DNS servers which will then provide answers to that query.  Hackers

could use this information to gather information about your network.  To the

extent however that internal networks only accessible to the outside world 
via VPN (and/or exists within a non-Internet routable IP range) then this 
scenario is not a security disadvantage. 
2) Longer DNS namespace.  This may not look appealing (or "pretty") to the 

The scenario is the recommendation from the Windows Server 2003 Deployment 
Guide.  It states to the external registered name and take a sub zone from 
that as  the DNS name for the Forest Root Domain 



Option #3: 
Different internal and external DNS domain names.  For example, 
and dnsname.local.   The administrator(s) maintain external records on the 
external DNS servers, and internal records on the internal DNS servers. 

This option is usually best for beginners b/c it's the easiest to implement 
primarily because it prevents name space conflicts from the very beginning 
with the public domain and requires no further action on your part with 
respect to that.  But this option does makes VPN resolution difficult (like 
option 1) and Exchange headers when examined closely will show the company 
internal AD name which looks unprofessional.  You can use any extension you 
want here such as .ad, .int, .lan, etc... 

1) The chief disadvantage to this approach comes in when users have to 
access resources and don't use FQDNs. A Windows 2000/XP box where a user 
types "ping server1", for example, or types "server1" in IE, could 
potentially get unexpected results. 

For example, there is a machine named and there is 
also a server named If a user opens IE and simply 
types "server1" in the address bar (happens often), then which "server1" is 
really the correct answer?  The answer may notbe what the user was looking 
for, and it will base off of the configuration settings for DNS under TCP/IP

properties, the machine's domain membership, whether or not it is using a 
proxy server, and finally the DNS suffix search order. 

2) Another disadvantage is the inability of many administrators to escape a 
very common pitfall when internal and external domain names are the same. 
If one is not careful, setting the internal AD domain to the same name as 
the external (public) DNS domain name will typically have such consequnces 
of internal user not being able to resolve the public website and slow 
logins to the internal AD *if* the internal clients configure a public DNS 
server in their TCP/IP properties. 

For a broad overview of this entire topic, see below. 

DNS Namespace Planning 



From: Jeff Bushberg [mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sat 1/14/2006 2:55 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Domain.local versus

I am setting up a  2003 Exchange server on a domain that has a .local

I was wondering if I will run into any problems. In the past I have set up

with the correct dns "domain".com name. Also I plan to implement rpc over

http will a .local create any issues. There is a existing win2k server 

with exchange 2000. I plan to keep the existing win2k dns server but remove

2000 exchange and add a new 2003 server with exchange 2003


Thanks Jeff





List Archives:
Exchange Newsletters: 
Visit for more information about our other sites:
You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
To unsubscribe visit
Report abuse to info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Other related posts: