Home Network Setup
-
Help me understand, are we talking about allowing untrusted clients to update to the DNS server or not allow any clients to update to the DNS server?
-
@black3dynamite said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
Here is the alternate.... on a non-Windows network, I don't want DNS listing random dynamic guests. That's the simplest solution. Windows does something I have no desire to have. Given that I don't know what purpose it serves, it's hard to figure out what you are actually looking to accomplish.
Windows DNS can be set to only allow secure dynamic updates, non secure dynamic updates, none. I think the default is secure dynamic updates.
That's the other way around. The point is to update non-Windows DNS, not to update Windows DNS. The plan here is to remove all Windows Servers so that no CALs are needed.
-
@black3dynamite said in Home Network Setup:
Help me understand, are we talking about allowing untrusted clients to update to the DNS server or not allow any clients to update to the DNS server?
We are talking about some unknown clients updating either BIND or Samba DNS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
So, in the real world, where we work from business goals, we have two basic things we would do. Neither matches what is asked.
- Non-AD Network (the one we are dealing with here.) There is no value or purpose to DDNS in this scenario. You have no problem to solve. Simply remove the Windows servers and go to normal, everyday DHCP and DNS. Ubiquiti, Linux VMs, everything already handle this perfectly well. There is nothing for the industry to improve here.
Well DDNS could have value if you want to manage your devices by name, not IP address, but otherwise - fine.
How would that work? What use case is there for that?
When I look at my Unifi controller, I like to see host names of my devices, not the mac addresses, because the mac is meaningless to me. So having the controller get the DNS name would be nice.. you don't see that?
-
@black3dynamite said in Home Network Setup:
Help me understand, are we talking about allowing untrusted clients to update to the DNS server or not allow any clients to update to the DNS server?
OMG NO - we dropped the dymanic portion of this conversation 10 mins ago!
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
So, in the real world, where we work from business goals, we have two basic things we would do. Neither matches what is asked.
- Non-AD Network (the one we are dealing with here.) There is no value or purpose to DDNS in this scenario. You have no problem to solve. Simply remove the Windows servers and go to normal, everyday DHCP and DNS. Ubiquiti, Linux VMs, everything already handle this perfectly well. There is nothing for the industry to improve here.
Well DDNS could have value if you want to manage your devices by name, not IP address, but otherwise - fine.
How would that work? What use case is there for that?
When I look at my Unifi controller, I like to see host names of my devices, not the mac addresses, because the mac is meaningless to me. So having the controller get the DNS name would be nice.. you don't see that?
Sort of, but it's a really trivial way to send false info.
-
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
As has been stated here before - if a device uses any Windows Server Service, it must have a CAL. So if you use DHCP - you need a CAL, if you use DNS you need a CAL. - assuming that still holdsThe assumption - for Scott's sake - is you have Active Directory.
My question is - you have a network of both windows clients and non windows clients. The non windows clients will never touch the Windows servers - go.
So I can answer this myself - Scott will now say - put them on separate networks - done. Why done? because you need Windows CALs for all of the Windows users already, so you're covered.. and the non windows devices/users will use a non license requiring DHCP/DNS solution on it's own network.
Yes damn that was a journey.
-
But, if you have a specific goal like this, when I ask for a goal, this is what you should say: "I spend enough time managing devices in Ubiquiti DHCP that I want to see hostnames there."
Then I might question that goal, because that seems like a weird problem to want to solve, but you are talking about an actual goal in allowing you to see hostnames listed. Do you see, it's a final thing, it's something that you as a person want out of the system. Not a means to an end, it's an end. A weird end worth inviestigating, but an end.
All of the questions to this point, all of them, were about "means" not "ends". They were all solutions to problems that weren't mentioned.
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
My question is - you have a network of both windows clients and non windows clients. The non windows clients will never touch the Windows servers - go.
Why would there be anything touching Windows Servers?
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
So I can answer this myself - Scott will now say - put them on separate networks - done. Why done? because you need Windows CALs for all of the Windows users already, so you're covered.. and the non windows devices/users will use a non license requiring DHCP/DNS solution on it's own network.
If you really have a need for Windows servers for some things and not for others, then yes, this works. You can also do things like not use DHCP for those devices. DHCP and DNS, while often nice, are anything but required. There are cases, rare as the may be, to just skip them.
But two networks might be better. Keep in mind that two networks might mean physically separate (like VLAN) for DHCP reasons, or overlapping on one with non-Windows DHCP and nothing else shared, or two subnets on one physical LAN.
-
But if the goal is to eliminate all Windows CALs, you could remove the Windows servers entirely. Just identify the goal level services (rather than services that only work to support those goals, those would be proximate services) and make sure that your non-Windows devices can supply those.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
Correct - it is not related to the first question - but when pressed - I did state it as much.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
But if the goal is to eliminate all Windows CALs, you could remove the Windows servers entirely. Just identify the goal level services (rather than services that only work to support those goals, those would be proximate services) and make sure that your non-Windows devices can supply those.
The goal was never to eliminate Windows CALs, but to buy as few as possible.
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
But if the goal is to eliminate all Windows CALs, you could remove the Windows servers entirely. Just identify the goal level services (rather than services that only work to support those goals, those would be proximate services) and make sure that your non-Windows devices can supply those.
The goal was never to eliminate Windows CALs, but to buy as few as possible.
Those are kind of the same thing. How few can you buy? Zero. Would that mean eliminating Windows? Yes.
See how they overlap?
In the thought experiment, there were no Windows services needed for anything, so the number needed was zero.
-
If the goal was to eliminate Windows CALs altogether, there would be no need for questions, because the answer would simply be, eliminate all Window Servers.
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
Correct - it is not related to the first question - but when pressed - I did state it as much.
Right, but it led us some pretty weird places since the original question was about something unneeded without Windows servers. So solving one solved the other.
It's like "How many buckets do I need to carry water once we've run out of water."
Um... zero?
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
If the goal was to eliminate Windows CALs altogether, there would be no need for questions, because the answer would simply be, eliminate all Window Servers.
Which was the answer I gave.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
Correct - it is not related to the first question - but when pressed - I did state it as much.
Right, but it led us some pretty weird places since the original question was about something unneeded without Windows servers. So solving one solved the other.
It's like "How many buckets do I need to carry water once we've run out of water."
Um... zero?
You read too much into the server bit - I didn't say unneeded, I said untouched by the non windows devices - two totally different things.
-
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
@scottalanmiller said in Home Network Setup:
@dashrender said in Home Network Setup:
The whole crux of my ask was - the desire to buy as few Windows Server CALs as possible.
This is unrelated to the question asked, though.
Correct - it is not related to the first question - but when pressed - I did state it as much.
Right, but it led us some pretty weird places since the original question was about something unneeded without Windows servers. So solving one solved the other.
It's like "How many buckets do I need to carry water once we've run out of water."
Um... zero?
You read too much into the server bit - I didn't say unneeded, I said untouched by the non windows devices - two totally different things.
But the base question was still how to provide a service that only exists for Windows AD. That that was the core question, anything that didn't explain why it was needed would lead to "just don't have it."
