Stub Zone Vs Delegated Zone

Discussion in 'Active Directory' started by Akn, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. Akn

    Akn Guest

    Hello All,

    Can you explain when would i use a stub zone? A delegated zone suffices my
    requirements to direct name resolution requests to name servers authoritative
    for a particular zone.

    A stub zone and delegated zone contaon more or less the same information. So
    whats so special about stub zone? I remember reading some where that
    delegated zone nformation is static whereas stub zone updates itself. So any
    changes made will be reflected in a stub zone whereas delgeated zone will not
    have this information. Is this true?

    Thanks in advance!
    Akn, Apr 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Akn

    Akn Guest

    Oops sorry for posting in the wrong discussion group.
    I think i got my answer form the other group...

    Akn, Apr 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Akn

    Herb Martin Guest

    In general, use a Stub zone whenever you first choice
    would have been (prior to Win2003) to hold a SECONDARY
    for that zone BUT the number of records, and thus the replication,
    traffic would be excessive.

    Stubs, (cross) Secondaries, Conditional Forwarding, and perhaps
    forest wide AD Integration all solve SIMILAR but very slightly
    different problems -- frequently there is no effective difference.
    Historically stubs didn't exist so delegation was the ONLY
    way to get from Parent to Child (unless the parent DNS server
    held a Secondary for the child.)

    With stubs you CAN if you wish hold one of these to get from
    parent to child without having to hold ALL of the child records
    on the parent.

    The main different between using Delegation (or Conditional
    forwarding to a peer or unrelated zone) AND a Stub is that the
    stub can keep the list of DNS servers AND their addresses up
    to date if it can continue to find it's master.

    Conditional forwarding and Delegation are HARD coded by the
    admin so they can become outdated -- BUT there is an advantage
    to THIS also:

    Since these method SPECIFY which DCs to use (and Stubs allow
    ANY DNS server for the zone which can be found to be used)
    their may be cases where it is MORE efficient to be certain of
    the chosen DNS server (e.g., European zones are connected through
    London and New York to the US, and thus you wouldn't want
    all the European resolution going to a random DNS server within
    the US -- you would prefer resolution to through London or
    maybe NY.)

    And so it is a trade off. Most of the time it doesn't matter.

    If you DNS servers are extremely stable (common) then Stub
    dynamic capabilities offer little advantage -- if there is no
    particular network "proximity" issues then Conditional Forwarding
    and Delegation offer little over Stubs.

    If Zones are small, stubs (CF, or Delegation) offer little advantage
    over just holding the ENTIRE zone locally as a secondary.

    The key is to understand the differences and apply it to a real
    world situation.
    Depends on what you mean by "any changes". If you had
    written "any changes to the DELEGATION DNS Servers or
    their addresses" I would have agreed. All other changes
    of the child zone will be found just fine.
    Herb Martin, Apr 17, 2006
  4. Akn

    Akn Guest

    Thanks Herb, that clears lots of doubts.

    also found a link in one of the dns groups, pretty neat --

    thanks once again!

    Akn, Apr 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.