Domain root MX records do not work with DNS STUB zones

8 Jul 2009 1:30 PM

Daniel

Just observed an interesting issue.

On w2k3 server we have created an AD integrated DNS STUB zone for
domain-name.com pointing to the other AD 2003 domain where the actual
domain-name.com zone is hosted. Upon creation all records can be
looked up via stub zone with the exception of the MX record for the
domain-name.com itself, which has broken the mail flow.

This looks like a bug in Microsoft DNS to me. While after seeing this,
I can theorize that since the actual root (Same as parent folder)
records for the domain-name.com is actually exist on the DNS server,
the server doesn't not attempt to look them up in the actual DNS zone.
So, since the actual STUB zone can only contain SOA, A and NS records,
and since MX is not part of the above, it appears that STUB zone will
do a job of proxy lookup for any record with the exception of domain
root records of type other then SOW, A or NS.

Has anyone seen anything like this?

8 Jul 2009 1:46 PM

Chris Dent

I'm not able to reproduce this failure.

Which versions of dns.exe are you using?

Chris

8 Jul 2009 2:08 PM

Daniel

On Jul 8, 9:46 am, Chris Dent <ch***@noreply.null> wrote:

> I'm not able to reproduce this failure.
>
> Which versions of dns.exe are you using?
>
> Chris

DNS.EXE

File Version 5.2.3790.1830 (srv03_sp1_rtm.050324-1447)
Modified Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 8:00:00 AM

8 Jul 2009 2:23 PM

Chris Dent

I haven't anything anywhere near that out of date, so you may be right
and it may be a bug. However, chasing KB articles for a version 2 years
out of date seems rather pointless (in my opinion of course). Willing to
patch?

Current version is 5.2.3790.4460 released back in March with this patch:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961063

(KB isn't relevant to the issue, it contains the patched version nothing
more)

2003 SP2 should have you on a better version as well. You're still
running SP1?

Chris

8 Jul 2009 3:10 PM

Daniel

Chris,

Thank you very much for your help and feedback.

I believe we have found the root cause, and it has nothing to do with
DNS.EXE versions or bugs. Upon further review it appears that the MX
records for the root of domain are in fact missing from the actual
master DNS zone, hence explaining the issue. As always, the simplest
explanation is usually right. I'm not exactly sure why this was missed
during the initial troubleshooting. The issue seems very simple in the
hindsight.

Please accept my apologizes.

On Jul 8, 10:23 am, Chris Dent <ch***@noreply.null> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote

> I haven't anything anywhere near that out of date, so you may be right
> and it may be a bug. However, chasing KB articles for a version 2 years
> out of date seems rather pointless (in my opinion of course). Willing to
> patch?
>
> Current version is 5.2.3790.4460 released back in March with this patch:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961063
>
> (KB isn't relevant to the issue, it contains the patched version nothing
> more)
>
> 2003 SP2 should have you on a better version as well. You're still
> running SP1?
>
> Chris

8 Jul 2009 3:31 PM

Chris Dent

No worries. I did wonder if I should have asked that, but like you say,
it's the very simple solution :)

All the best,

Chris

9 Jul 2009 6:18 AM

Meinolf Weber [MVP-DS]

Hello Daniel,

As Chris already mentioned, you should upgrade to SP2 and the latest patches.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

Show quoteHide quote

> Chris,
>
> Thank you very much for your help and feedback.
>
> I believe we have found the root cause, and it has nothing to do with
> DNS.EXE versions or bugs. Upon further review it appears that the MX
> records for the root of domain are in fact missing from the actual
> master DNS zone, hence explaining the issue. As always, the simplest
> explanation is usually right. I'm not exactly sure why this was missed
> during the initial troubleshooting. The issue seems very simple in the
> hindsight.
>
> Please accept my apologizes.
>
> On Jul 8, 10:23 am, Chris Dent <ch***@noreply.null> wrote:
>
>> I haven't anything anywhere near that out of date, so you may be
>> right and it may be a bug. However, chasing KB articles for a version
>> 2 years out of date seems rather pointless (in my opinion of course).
>> Willing to patch?
>>
>> Current version is 5.2.3790.4460 released back in March with this
>> patch:
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/961063
>>
>> (KB isn't relevant to the issue, it contains the patched version
>> nothing more)
>>
>> 2003 SP2 should have you on a better version as well. You're still
>> running SP1?
>>
>> Chris
>>