RE: [ActiveDir] Renaming sites

2006-12-06 Thread Huber, Rob \(HNI Corp\)
Thanks all for the assistance!  It is greatly appreciated!

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kamlesh Parmar
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 11:43 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Renaming sites

 

We just did it, 

In transition period, we saw clients wandering over WAN links, and not
connecting to DC in same renamed site, after restarting the DC, clients
returned back to renamed site DC.[1]

Procedure:
1. Rename the site
2. Verify it is replicated to all DCs in that site
3. Restart DCs one by one, 
4) After restart verify that DC is publishing the SRV records under new
sitename, and has changed its sitename, (DynamicSiteName value in
registry), or nltest /dsgetsite 
5. And if needed restart all the machines in that site.

--
Kamlesh

[1] No this is not the issue, for which I have a open question in the
list.

On 12/5/06, Huber, Rob (HNI Corp) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Does anyone know of any issue with renaming sites?  For example, if we
change the site call Chicago to ChicagoIL, what issues could arise?  I
expect that since the GUID is not changes that there will not be a
problem.  How about if we use SMS??




-- 
~
You teach best what you most need to learn.
~ 



[ActiveDir] Renaming sites

2006-12-04 Thread Huber, Rob \(HNI Corp\)
Does anyone know of any issue with renaming sites?  For example, if we
change the site call Chicago to ChicagoIL, what issues could arise?  I
expect that since the GUID is not changes that there will not be a
problem.  How about if we use SMS??



RE: [ActiveDir] Switching distibution lists to security groups

2006-10-27 Thread Huber, Rob \(HNI Corp\)








Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.
Is it safe for me to assume that the only consideration in doing this is the
token size?











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Coleman, Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
9:24 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Switching
distibution lists to security groups





Rob-



This came up just the other day. Check http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/msg47273.htmland
see if the responses there help.



Hunter









From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Huber, Rob (HNI Corp)
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
8:10 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Switching
distibution lists to security groups

Hello,



This may be an easy answer, but I want to get feedback
anyway. What are the potential problems/issues/concerns with switching
distribution groups to security groups? Our Sharepoint group has rolled
out Sharepoint site permissions based on DLs. I believe that DLs should
be used for DLs and security groups should be used for security (or permissions
in this case) and have encouraged them to set the permissions
accordingly. Their counter is that the site owners do not know the membership
of the security groups, but know the membership of their respective groups DLs
and therefore it is easier to administrate the permissions that way. A
simple fix would be to switch the DLs to security groups, however that seams a
bit too simple.










[ActiveDir] Switching distibution lists to security groups

2006-10-24 Thread Huber, Rob \(HNI Corp\)








Hello,



This may be an easy answer, but I want to get feedback
anyway. What are the potential problems/issues/concerns with switching
distribution groups to security groups? Our Sharepoint group has rolled
out Sharepoint site permissions based on DLs. I believe that DLs should
be used for DLs and security groups should be used for security (or permissions
in this case) and have encouraged them to set the permissions
accordingly. Their counter is that the site owners do not know the
membership of the security groups, but know the membership of their respective
groups DLs and therefore it is easier to administrate the permissions that
way. A simple fix would be to switch the DLs to security groups, however
that seams a bit too simple.