03-25-06 04:59 PM
> must belong to a domain. We need the web site to reflect our domain so
> this
> means we must add the web servers to the inside domain.
I do not follow what is intended meaning of this "reflect" our domain.
If the one web server is able to accomplish everything needed now as
a stand-alone, then what is the issue requiring this "reflect"?
Two servers can be a pair of DCs in a domain and no one in the world
other than the admin, no machine in the world other than those two, have
any need to know the private domain name, its dns, etc. and yet those
two machines may answer to the outside by whatever DNS records
are registered in the world's DNS, and those two machines do not
even need to know what external DNS names were used.
"Tewhano" <Tewhano@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5D34B01D-CEAF-4FC2-A155-A51B821A9598@microsoft.com...
>I have a web server (2K3) sitting inside the DMZ which accesses data inside
> the domain via the firewall. All the data, including the web site, resides
> on
> the data server and is an in-house application. The executables runs on
> the
> web server and fetches the data the customer requests. We have two NICs in
> the server; one is allowed only ports 80 and 443 traffic for public
> access.
> The other is restricted by to four ports for access to the data server
> only.
>
> We want to cluster two web servers but found out that to do so means they
> must belong to a domain. We need the web site to reflect our domain so
> this
> means we must add the web servers to the inside domain. This appears to me
> to
> circumvent the whole idea behind a DMZ. Is there a way to secure the web
> servers so that they can be on the domain and still be in the DMZ? If the
> web
> server is compromised we don't want them to have access inside.
>
[ Post a follow-up to this message ]
|