Trust relationship between PDCs

[Daniel Robbins]

Has anyone else noticed that having an NT BDC isn't all that great?  From
my experience, the BDC will process logons, but when the BDC isn't
available for an extended period of time, domain logons will flake out,
even if the PDC is available.  Is there a way around this?

The reason I mention this is because it would be nice if Samba would work
properly in this regard.  I don't know whether this is possible.  Is the
problem related to network browsing or a defect in some other part of the
Microsoft BDC implementation?  Would forcing a browser election on the
network eventually resolve this problem, or is this a totally different
issue?

If there is some way Samba could be designed to allow BDCs to go down, and
have clients transparently switch over to a functional PDC for domain
logons, then Samba domains would be much more useful and reliable than
Microsoft's.

Does anyone else have this BDC problem with Windows NT Server 4.0, or am I
doing something wrong?

On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 07:54:20AM +1100, Matt Chapman wrote:
> Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> 
> > BDC functionality might be nice. What would be nicer is a netmon trace of
> > replication and of BDC -> PDC and PDC -> BDC promote.
> > Same thing for trust relationship.
> 
> I'm playing with replication now. Almost have it figured out.
> 
> There's about a half-dozen new RPC's we need including some more service
> control and LSA secret stuff, plus the central \NETLOGON 0x07 "enumerate
> changed accounts" RPC. The latter is a bit annoying in that some of it is
> passed as "blobs" of registry info rather than RPC parameters.
> 
>     Matt
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Matt Chapman
> m.chapman at student.unsw.edu.au
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Daniel Robbins
System Administrator
University of New Mexico
drobbins at obgyn.unm.edu