Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error - Netd
From: Steve Duff [MVP] (ergodic_at_ergodic-systems.com)
Date: 07/08/05
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Difference between a USER and an AUTHENTICATED USER"
- In reply to: NickN: "[FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error - Netd"
- Next in thread: Charlie: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Reply: Charlie: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Reply: NickN: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:34:08 -0700
I believe you are seeing the same problem, and it is a netdiag 2000 bug. Unless you are seeing server events logged relating to this
or you are having authentication or replication problems and the error is strictly from netdiag I wouldn't be too worried about it.
(If you have other symptoms that is definitely a different story.)
Curiousity compels me though it isn't related to your question: if you already have a 2003 domain I assume you already have CALs and
so I'm wondering why would you be installing 2K Server to host Exchange 2003? The improvements for Exchange 2003 under Server 2003
are modest but still valuable.
Steve Duff, MCSE, MVP
Ergodic Systems, Inc.
"NickN" <NickN@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0C3B3E64-E401-47C0-B792-D165DBB409B3@microsoft.com...
>I would seem to be suffering the exact opposite of KB article 870692. I have
> prepared a new Windows 2000 member server in a Windows 2003 domain (reusing
> an old 2000 licence) I am running through the checklist before I install
> Exchange 2003 on this box & get the above error when running netdiag.
> Microsoft acknowledges the problem in the KB article above when it is a 2003
> member server in a 2000 domain. If checked the event viewer, turned on
> security auditing & kerberos auditing to no avail. Tried klist ticket, klist
> tgt etc. - doesn't seem to be an issue here. I've forced kerberos to use TCP
> & not UDP. Not sure where to go next unless this is an artifact of the same
> bug as mentioned in the KB article.
>
> Does anyone have similar experience to mine? Any help gratefully accepted.
> Nick.
- Previous message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Difference between a USER and an AUTHENTICATED USER"
- In reply to: NickN: "[FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error - Netd"
- Next in thread: Charlie: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Reply: Charlie: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Reply: NickN: "Re: [FATAL] Kerberos does not have a ticket for "SERVER"$ Error -"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]