Re: Empty Root Domain required?
- From: "Anthony" <anthony.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:33:17 +0100
I think it is a bit of a mixed answer.
In part, it is good practice to have an empty root domain and your main
domain as a child. It gives you greater flexibility for expansion and
change, for example by creating a second peer. It also somewhat protects the
core from access and changes. However it also means that you need a minimum
or four DC's instead of two, so in a small network you may just have to do
without.
In terms of migration to a future AD structure of your parent, I doubt there
is any difference between migrating a child domain or a root domain to a
different forest.
However, depending on your relationship with the parent, there is an option
for them to inherit the root you have created and expand it.
On balance, I think the only real purpose of root and child would be if you
need the flexibility in future for yourself,
Anthony
"Beno" <Beno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:825C16D4-9572-42F2-8417-5C4584A112FB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello
I want to setup a new AD (Win2k3) for my subsidiary company. We are
autonomous from the our overseas parent company, and the parent company
does
not have a "global AD structure" at this point. I was proposing to create
an
empty root domain in my new local forest, and then have my "production
domain" as a child domain off the empty root domain. If, in the future,
the
parent company created a new global AD that we, as a subsidiary needed to
be
part of, I thought I could "cross-migrate" my child production domain
straight into the parent "global AD forest" off their root domain. Is this
a
good idea, or is the empty child domain in my local forest simply a waste
of
resources?
.
- Prev by Date: Accessing AD/ADAM from SQL
- Next by Date: Re: Wallpaper - [WildPacket]
- Previous by thread: Accessing AD/ADAM from SQL
- Next by thread: Re: Empty Root Domain required?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
