[Samba] Win Clients and DNS

[James]

On 11/16/2015 2:03 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 16/11/15 18:52, James wrote:
>> On 11/16/2015 1:46 PM, Viktor Trojanovic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16.11.2015 18:42, James wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/2015 12:18 PM, Viktor Trojanovic wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this with Samba internal DNS? What version of Samba? Your 
>>>>>>> original OP stated this to be the issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The system failed to register host (A or AAA) resource records 
>>>>>>> (RRs) for network adapter with settings:"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Are you using 
>>>>>>> secure or non-secure updates? Even though you are using static 
>>>>>>> IP's, you will find these entries if one of the following was to 
>>>>>>> happen and dns updates failed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  * A IP address was added or removed from the TCP/IP properties 
>>>>>>> in Windows
>>>>>>>  * Enforcing ipconfig /registerdns from a elevated command prompt
>>>>>>>  * At startup
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on what you have said. It appears all A records belonging 
>>>>>>> to the workstations are registered in DNS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are probably right James, the OP initially gave the 
>>>>>> impression that he didn't have the workstations records in DNS, 
>>>>>> this has been proven to be incorrect, they are there. He also 
>>>>>> muddied the waters with saying they are all fixed IPs, so it 
>>>>>> seems that everbody focussed in on DNS problems, totally missing 
>>>>>> that it is a WINDOWS problem, see here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://support.simpledns.com/kb/a182/system-failed-to-register-host-resource-records-rrs-network-adapter___-warning-windows-event-log.aspx 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, to fix his problem, stop the windows machines from trying to 
>>>>>> register their address in DNS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quick google found this, first on the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rowland
>>>>>>
>>>>> Rowland, it might be that the linked page explains why the 
>>>>> register fails but it doesn't say to solve the problem by stopping 
>>>>> the machines to try to register their address. As you might have 
>>>>> seen later in the discussion thread, there were differing opinions 
>>>>> whether it is ok to uncheck that box or not. If dynamic 
>>>>> registration is not needed/possible with Samba DNS and that box 
>>>>> should be unchecked, then this might be something worth knowing, 
>>>>> and maybe should be part of the wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the help.
>>>>>
>>>>> Viktor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This doesn't sound like a issue but the intended behavior of windows.
>>>>
>>>> It's OK to uncheck that box if assigning IP addresses to 
>>>> workstations. However I would advise against it. IP's would never 
>>>> get updated in DNS if you needed to make a change to one of the 
>>>> workstations. You would have to re enable this check box and most 
>>>> importantly, remember to do this manually. Opens room for headaches 
>>>> and additional administration.  A better solution would be to 
>>>> create a GPO to prevent dynamic updates. This "error" can be safely 
>>>> ignored if you don't require dynamic updates.
>>>>
>>>> Dynamic registration is required if not using static IP's. It's 
>>>> also possible with Samba. This depends on the Samba version you are 
>>>> using and if you're using the internal or bind solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm too tired but I have trouble understanding. So you're 
>>> saying that if I leave the check there, and some time down the road 
>>> decide to change an IP, it will register the correct IP back to the 
>>> computer name. But didn't we just establish that this update is not 
>>> happening? Or are there multiple types of DNS registration, such as 
>>> dynamic and non-dynamic?
>>>
>>> And thanks for the advice about the GPO, I will look into that.
>>>
>>> By the way, just to be on the safe side: I'm using Samba internal 
>>> DNS, without any customizations, version 4.31.
>>>
>> This is your problem
>>
>> *I'm using Samba internal DNS, without any customizations, version 4.31.
>>
>>
>> *It's a bug that causes signed secure updates to fail. Either enable 
>> non secure updates( I wouldn't advise) or switch to bind. I would do 
>> neither as you are currently using static IP's. Disregard the error 
>> in event viewer until a update or patch has been released.
>
> The bug shouldn't affect him, he isn't using DHCP!
>
>>
>>
>> Now to answer your questions
>>
>> *Maybe I'm too tired but I have trouble understanding. So you're 
>> saying that if I leave the check there, and some time down the road 
>> decide to change an IP, it will register the correct IP back to the 
>> computer name?
>>
>> *Yes.*
>>
>> **But didn't we just establish that this update is not happening?
>>
>> *Yes..*BUT *the update succeeds during join. It's on the subsequent 
>> update attempts that fail. See above bug.
>>
>> *Or are there multiple types of DNS registration, such as dynamic and 
>> non-dynamic?
>>
>> *You have dynamic and non dynamic updates. Dynamic meaning it's done 
>> for your by workstation/DHCP server. Non-dynamic meaning by the 
>> Administrator.
>>
>
> Another word for dynamic could be 'automatic' , this means that 
> something without intervention of any person tries to update your dns 
> records. This is something that is not required if you use FIXED IPs, 
> so either turn them off on each individual windows client or use a GPO.
>
> Rowland
>
>
It doesn't matter if he isn't using DHCP. Windows clients by default 
will attempt to register their A record with DNS upon start up. Whether 
assigned dynamically or statically.This is what Viktor stated.

*As I said, I can easily access them myself, it's just that error in the 
event log which makes it seem as if, during the startup phase, there is 
a problem to access certain information.

*I'm taking this to believe he is seeing these errors in event viewer 
"during the startup phase".


-- 
-James