Strange refusal to bind issue - naming clash

Trying to bind an OS 10.7 machine to our AD over recent days and the flipping thing doesn't want to play. We have bound quite a few to date so are pretty used at to how to do it. The problem with this particular machine is I suspect something to do with it's name; we noticed that despite being called one name somewhere along the line it had decided that it was another machine that is already happily bound to the network. We have sort of successfully renamed it now and it appears to have accepted it's new name and indeed appears in DHCP as it's new name on our MS domain. However, try to bind it and it persistently thinks it's still the other machine. Grr! Any thoughts on this please?

Are you talking about binding to apple server ?

If you want to bind Lion clients to Leopard server then you will have this problem. You will have to do unauthenticated binding. If you try to do authenticated binding then it will say computer account exists. No matter what you do its not going to do authenticated binding. I was puzzled by same problem. You can enable unauthenticated binding at the Leopard server by GUI or by command line.

IN GUI: Server Admin >Open Directory >Policies >Binding > Uncheck "Enable authenticated binding"

Command Line: sudo slapconfig -setmacosxodpolicy -binding disabled.


In unauthenticated binding the mac may not appear in Work Group Manager. You won't be able to add the mac to any computer group because it may not appear at all. As a result you won't be able to control the MCX settings by computer.

Hope this helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sultan966

In unauthenticated binding the mac may not appear in Work Group Manager. You won't be able to add the mac to any computer group because it may not appear at all. As a result you won't be able to control the MCX settings by computer.

Hope this helps.

---

That's not strictly true. We do not use authenticated binding here and I still manage the computers fine. What you need to do is instead of using the plus button to add the computers to lists in WGM, make sure that the machines are switched on and then use the button that has three ... on it. This will bring up a list of the macs that are available on the network. You can then add these to the computer lists. It finds them by Mac address as far as I'm aware. I think you can also add them to the list by the mac address. This is how I have always done it. I have had people say that you should use authenticated binding as the computers can occasionally disappear and then are not managed by the MCX's. I've never really had a major issue though.

@speckytecky

Have you imaged this machine with an image taken from a mac that was already bound? If so, it is always best to image a mac before binding. Also if the sharing name in the sharing preference pane will not change, this comes from the DNS Server. make sure that the dns settings are correct. If there is an old DNS record, the mac may use it causing confusion with the naming. Its usually the reverse zone records that cause the issue IIRC.

Thanks @sultan966. No it's to Active Directory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sultan966

Are you talking about binding to apple server ?

If you want to bind Lion clients to Leopard server then you will have this problem. You will have to do unauthenticated binding. If you try to do authenticated binding then it will say computer account exists. No matter what you do its not going to do authenticated binding. I was puzzled by same problem. You can enable unauthenticated binding at the Leopard server by GUI or by command line.

IN GUI: Server Admin >Open Directory >Policies >Binding > Uncheck "Enable authenticated binding"

Command Line: sudo slapconfig -setmacosxodpolicy -binding disabled.


In unauthenticated binding the mac may not appear in Work Group Manager. You won't be able to add the mac to any computer group because it may not appear at all. As a result you won't be able to control the MCX settings by computer.

Hope this helps.

---

Thanks given to @sultan966 and @HodgeHi you have both given me areas to explore.