Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
From: Al Mulnick (amulnick_No_SPAM_at_ncDOTrr.com)
Date: 06/08/04
- Next message: Martyn Fewtrell: "Incoming Mail fails"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: POP3 trouble"
- In reply to: Jeff L: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Next in thread: Peter Storkey: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Reply: Peter Storkey: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:29:17 -0400
Quite likely that if you want to maintain the file share concept you want
data there as well. You have what is similar to DFS in concept. You may
want to investigate that.
I'm not sure I understand why you'd want a totally separate forest for
Active Directory? Why not upgrade the existing NT 4 domain at corporate??
What was preventing that from happening?
Al
"Jeff L" <newsgroupsremoveandunderscore_jeff@availabletech.net> wrote in
message news:OLbmd3KTEHA.3872@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Peter,
>
> No need to be so pesimistic.
>
> You can maintian the same functionality with Windows. Check out the
answers
> below.
>
> Answers are marked with ***.
>
> Jeff Loucks
> Available Technology ®
> Solutions For Professionals ®
> www.availabletechnology.com
>
>
> "Peter Storkey" <pstorkey@smeghead.ca wrote in message
> news:3d29c0pqvuhdhdsocrv1g6sg7fiqn1pc57@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 17:55:50 +1000, in microsoft.public.exchange.setup
> you wrote:
>
> <newsgroupsremoveandunderscore_jeff@availabletech.net wrote:
>
> If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on
> 2000/2003 server, and buy Windows 200x CALS, whether you upgrade your
> existing domain, or install a parallel one, so there isnt a cost
> justification for what you suggest.
>
> Thanks, you are correct. I've looked into the CALS a little more, and
> we will indeed need to purchase the Windows 2003 CALS even if we only
> use the server for Exchange.
>
> There is another reason for wanting to maintain the NT4 domain and use
> AD only for Exchange 2003 - our existing DNS hierarchy has a subdomain
> for each site, which it seems will not play nicely with Active
> Directory unless we make each of those DNS subdomains a separate
> domain in AD.
>
> *** Active Directory can be aware of the location and map people to the
> appropriate local file share.
> *** AD use the concept of Organizational Units to reflect different
regions
> or departments, thereby simplifying administration
>
> The DNS hierarchy is configured this way so that we can maintain
> uniform naming for accessing files in remote sites. For example, if a
> user in site1 types "files" into their browser, they will connect to
> files.site1.domain.com and if a user in site 2 types "files" into
> their browser, they will connect to files.site2.domain.com etc.
>
> *** The above functionality can be easily maintained in Windows.
>
> With 220 users over 20 sites, the number of users at most sites is
> obviously
> pretty small. There would be no need to have a server at the remote
> sites,
> especially with Outlook 2003 in cached mode, which uses an offline
> address
> book.
>
> Currently our NT domain has the PDC and a BDC in our head office, and
> a BDC at our second largest site. All other remote sites authenticate
> against from either of those two sites. Our single Exchange 5.5 server
> is also located at head office and users connect to it directly across
> the WAN. This has worked ok for us so far - If we upgrade the domain
> to AD, will this continue to be satisfactory ?
>
> *** Yes, if that current structure is working. I would be concerned to
keep
> group policies simple however.
>
> Our workstations are all Windows - we're in the process of
> standardising on XP Professional. There is a Linux box at each site
> that provides file/print, http proxy and dhcp.
>
>
> So, as I see it, these are our choices:
>
> Purchase Windows 2003 Server and CALS plus Exchange 2003 and CALS
> Install a brand new AD and establish a trust between NT 4 and AD
> Install Exchange 2003
> Migrate mailboxes
> Associate Exchange 2003 mailboxes with NT 4 accounts
>
> PROs:
> Existing DNS hierarchy is maintained *** this is antiquated setup/
> your can replicate the advantages in other ways through Windows
> Strategy of migrating domain to Linux is maintained
> CONs:
> This seems to be possible but complicated and not recommended...
>
> OR
>
> Purchase Windows 2003 Server and CALS plus Exchange 2003 and CALS
> Flatten DNS hierarchy *** you will be able to maintain the
functionality
> you described with local file shares responding to a common name.
> Upgrade NT 4 domain to AD *** you will find administration is greatly
> simplified
> Install Exchange 2003
> Migrate mailboxes
>
> PROs:
> Gives full benefit of AD to users
> Simpler administration
> CONs:
> Flattened DNS hierarchy reduces functionality
> Unable to migrate domain to Linux (Linux servers can remain member
> servers)
>
> I have a feeling that the first scenario will end up being more
> trouble than it's worth. The overall goal is stability and user
> satisfaction, so I guess we're going to have to seriously consider the
> second option.
>
> Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions,
>
> Pete
>
>
- Next message: Martyn Fewtrell: "Incoming Mail fails"
- Previous message: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: POP3 trouble"
- In reply to: Jeff L: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Next in thread: Peter Storkey: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Reply: Peter Storkey: "Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
