ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Hairpin routing

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    routerroutinghairpin
    45 Posts 6 Posters 10.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
      last edited by

      @JaredBusch said:

      @scottalanmiller said:

      @JaredBusch said:

      I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

      That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

      It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

      Yup, uses extra CPU and whatever. Shouldn't be dramatic, but it's there.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • JaredBuschJ
        JaredBusch @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @Dashrender said:

        @JaredBusch said:

        @scottalanmiller said:

        @JaredBusch said:

        I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

        That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

        It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

        Have you tested it? is it really slower?

        Yes Pertino is slow. Always has been. Not horrible, but slower than direct.

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
          last edited by

          @Dashrender said:

          @JaredBusch said:

          @scottalanmiller said:

          @JaredBusch said:

          I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

          That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

          It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

          Have you tested it? is it really slower?

          Has to be slower, latency is unavailable. Is it noticeably slower? That may or may not be. It will use more CPU for sure.

          DashrenderD JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
            last edited by

            @JaredBusch said:

            @Dashrender said:

            @JaredBusch said:

            @scottalanmiller said:

            @JaredBusch said:

            I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

            That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

            It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

            Have you tested it? is it really slower?

            Yes Pertino is slow. Always has been. Not horrible, but slower than direct.

            Kind of an average, but our Pertino would pretty typically add 50ms, which for storage can be noticed in many cases. We've seen 400ms happen a lot, but not an average. It's enough to feel for storage.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DashrenderD
              Dashrender @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said:

              @Dashrender said:

              @JaredBusch said:

              @scottalanmiller said:

              @JaredBusch said:

              I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

              That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

              It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

              Have you tested it? is it really slower?

              Has to be slower, latency is unavailable. Is it noticeably slower? That may or may not be. It will use more CPU for sure.

              Thank you for asking the question I meant to ask

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • JaredBuschJ
                JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                last edited by JaredBusch

                @scottalanmiller said:

                @Dashrender said:

                @JaredBusch said:

                @scottalanmiller said:

                @JaredBusch said:

                I am not going to put ZT or Pertino on the ownCloud server because there is zero need for it. That data is all SSL encrypted and has no need to go through any kind of other tunnel.

                That makes sense. Very different from "doesn't support it" 🙂

                It is also a slowdown that is not needed.

                Have you tested it? is it really slower?

                Has to be slower, latency is unavailable. Is it noticeably slower? That may or may not be. It will use more CPU for sure.

                When I misconfigured Pertino once after first getting it, and the entire office was routing a single application over Pertino, it killed connections. The latency is what killed it.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • stacksofplatesS
                  stacksofplates @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by stacksofplates

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @Dashrender said:

                  In the Windows 2000 days the suggestion was to use your domain name (where Split brain/Split horizon came from). Then in Windows 2003 days MS changed and suggested that companies use company.local. This of course wouldn't route over the internet, yet so I heard caused all kinds of other problems. In either 2008 or 2012, don't recall which, MS stopped suggesting the use of company.local. I have no idea what the current recommendation is.

                  .local had no problems and routes fine. It can't be looked up by public DNS servers, which is a good thing not a bad one. Yes, MS made the split horizon mistake in 2000, that was a decade and a half ago and has long since not done that. It's a horrible practice with endless problems.

                  Any problems with .local I'm confident were myths. Like that it could not route. It works flawlessly until you have Macs which use .local specifically to break AD as part of an MS / Apple feud from long ago.

                  The recommendation since .local is to have a unique domain that you own but is not .local.

                  Split horizon has not been considered remotely acceptable since 2003 era or earlier. There's really no upside. And as there is everything warning against it and nothing recommending it, it's quite shocking that it happens. It's the most basic thing that they have always warned about in AD training.

                  There are still people touting this stuff all over the place.

                  http://www.mdmarra.com/2012/11/why-you-shouldnt-use-local-in-your.html

                  This site says ICANN is selling .local, but I can't find anything on that at all.

                  http://blog.varonis.com/active-directory-domain-naming-best-practices/

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J
                    Jason Banned
                    last edited by

                    We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                    Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                    scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                      last edited by

                      @johnhooks said:

                      @scottalanmiller said:

                      @Dashrender said:

                      In the Windows 2000 days the suggestion was to use your domain name (where Split brain/Split horizon came from). Then in Windows 2003 days MS changed and suggested that companies use company.local. This of course wouldn't route over the internet, yet so I heard caused all kinds of other problems. In either 2008 or 2012, don't recall which, MS stopped suggesting the use of company.local. I have no idea what the current recommendation is.

                      .local had no problems and routes fine. It can't be looked up by public DNS servers, which is a good thing not a bad one. Yes, MS made the split horizon mistake in 2000, that was a decade and a half ago and has long since not done that. It's a horrible practice with endless problems.

                      Any problems with .local I'm confident were myths. Like that it could not route. It works flawlessly until you have Macs which use .local specifically to break AD as part of an MS / Apple feud from long ago.

                      The recommendation since .local is to have a unique domain that you own but is not .local.

                      Split horizon has not been considered remotely acceptable since 2003 era or earlier. There's really no upside. And as there is everything warning against it and nothing recommending it, it's quite shocking that it happens. It's the most basic thing that they have always warned about in AD training.

                      There are still people touting this stuff all over the place.

                      http://www.mdmarra.com/2012/11/why-you-shouldnt-use-local-in-your.html

                      This site says ICANN is selling .local, but I can't find anything on that at all.

                      http://blog.varonis.com/active-directory-domain-naming-best-practices/

                      You have not been supposed to use .local for some time now, but no one is selling it, it is just a preventative measure to not have .local from that perspective. It is Apple trying to break AD is why it should be avoided. If you don't run Macs, .local works flawlessly on Windows networks.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Jason
                        last edited by

                        @Jason said:

                        We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                        Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                        A lot of people use ad.domain.com mostly because it is short.

                        JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • JaredBuschJ
                          JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @Jason said:

                          We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                          Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                          A lot of people use ad.domain.com mostly because it is short.

                          That is what I use on new stuff, for exactly that reason, it is short.

                          DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DashrenderD
                            Dashrender @JaredBusch
                            last edited by

                            @JaredBusch said:

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            @Jason said:

                            We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                            Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                            A lot of people use ad.domain.com mostly because it is short.

                            That is what I use on new stuff, for exactly that reason, it is short

                            literally ad.domain.com?

                            J scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • J
                              Jason Banned @Dashrender
                              last edited by

                              This post is deleted!
                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • scottalanmillerS
                                scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                last edited by

                                @Dashrender said:

                                @JaredBusch said:

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                @Jason said:

                                We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                                Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                                A lot of people use ad.domain.com mostly because it is short.

                                That is what I use on new stuff, for exactly that reason, it is short

                                literally ad.domain.com?

                                Where "domain.com" is your domain, yes.

                                JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • JaredBuschJ
                                  JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                                  last edited by

                                  @scottalanmiller said:

                                  @Dashrender said:

                                  @JaredBusch said:

                                  @scottalanmiller said:

                                  @Jason said:

                                  We use .local but also have a lot of macs and it sucks.

                                  Recommendation from MS anymore is internal.domain.com or something similar

                                  A lot of people use ad.domain.com mostly because it is short.

                                  That is what I use on new stuff, for exactly that reason, it is short

                                  literally ad.domain.com?

                                  Where "domain.com" is your domain, yes.

                                  Yes.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • DashrenderD
                                    Dashrender
                                    last edited by

                                    So those of you that have had a domain for over a decade, have you all moved to new domains to follow this newish domain naming.

                                    scottalanmillerS JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • scottalanmillerS
                                      scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                      last edited by

                                      @Dashrender said:

                                      So those of you that have had a domain for over a decade, have you all moved to new domains to follow this newish domain naming.

                                      We've had ours well over a decade and it was already very much warned by MS not to do split horizon and they had been telling us .local was the way to go. I actually don't remember there ever being a time that they didn't warn against using your domain name. I started working with AD in beta in 1999 and by then I believe we were already warned. I've been on AD since Windows 2000 and the very first materials I saw from MS the number one thing that they trained you on when you did your first research was not to do that. We've been on AD for thirteen or more years of the same domain at NTG and have always been on .local.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • JaredBuschJ
                                        JaredBusch @Dashrender
                                        last edited by

                                        @Dashrender said:

                                        So those of you that have had a domain for over a decade, have you all moved to new domains to follow this newish domain naming.

                                        Why would you spend tyhe money to move to a new domain structure? Sure if you are going to be redoing things for other reason, but their is no technical reason to move an existing domain that I am aware of.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • scottalanmillerS
                                          scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          I agree with Jared, best practice is to do one thing, but once the wrong thing is done, you pretty much just live with it. The negatives are there, but aren't generally dramatic. Just make sure new domains don't have overlapping domains with existing ones.

                                          JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • JaredBuschJ
                                            JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            @scottalanmiller said:

                                            I agree with Jared, best practice is to do one thing, but once the wrong thing is done, you pretty much just live with it. The negatives are there, but aren't generally dramatic. Just make sure new domains don't have overlapping domains with existing ones.

                                            Almost all of my clients are on .local for example. They are because they used to be on SBS and that is how SBS set it up by default. The #1 rule of SBS was to always follow the wizards unless you wanted to spend a lot of time doing shit manually.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 2 / 3
                                            • First post
                                              Last post