RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-08-01 Thread Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DNA)
Operational Procedures and Standards document. Hehe Todd From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 7:26 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest :o) It is our job as technical experts or subject

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-08-01 Thread al_maurer
@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I'd actually have to say that this is a battle worth fighting because people would try to see something in AD which they shouldn't = a separate tree should certainly not be used simply to put an organisational

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-08-01 Thread Al Mulnick
@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I have to agree with Guido: I have not seen any reason for separate trees or even domains that can't be accomodated with multiple OUs instead. Mergers, acquisitions or divestitures might be one reason for separating

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-08-01 Thread joe
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I hate to keep quiet :) This one struck a chord, Guido: "Better division of _responsibilities_ for Backup/Restore as "the different orgs are responsible for their own data" is one of the worst re

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-08-01 Thread Al Mulnick
4:48 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Generally, the more domains, the more administrators you require. Not need, just require. I know Joe would argue that one admin could do all of this, but I've typically seen

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest (sauntering momentarily OT)

2005-08-01 Thread Hunter, Laura E.
Joe, I suspect we agree to just about all of it except the chinchilla. I think you should give the chinchilla a shot. To show support, we've started a web page http://www.givejoeschinchilla_a_shot.com (Don't tell the pig.) Oh man, that one's almost as good as www.shutuplaura.com.

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-31 Thread Rick Kingslan
not technically bad enough to warrant the fight that will ensue. Rick From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 2:49 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I seriously

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-31 Thread Grillenmeier, Guido
onntag, 31. Juli 2005 17:38To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Joe said: WHY??? What do you feel the benefit is? In my experience, its been not what *I* think the benefit is its more about what management WANTED for reason A, o

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-31 Thread Myrick, Todd (NIH/CC/DNA)
into. Hope this info is helpful, Todd Myrick _ From: Grillenmeier, Guido [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/31/2005 2:43 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I'd actually have to say that this is a battle worth fighting

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-31 Thread joe
OTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick KingslanSent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 11:38 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Joe said: WHY??? What do you feel the benefit is? In my experience, its been not what *I* think the benefit is its more

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-30 Thread joe
:25 AMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Hello All, Looking to decide on an AD domain structurein a single forest. The options on the table are;1. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and child domains (i.e. a.x.com,b.x.com etc.) based

[ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-28 Thread Robert.Contreras
Hello All, Looking to decide on an AD domain structurein a single forest. The options on the table are;1. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and child domains (i.e. a.x.com,b.x.com etc.) based on the regions.2. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and other domains (i.e. a.com andb.com etc.) based on

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-28 Thread Peter Johnson
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 July 2005 13:25 To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Hello All, Looking to decide on an AD domain structure in a single forest. The options

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-28 Thread Almeida Pinto, Jorge de
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest I'm partial to a dedicated, empty root as it allows for more flexible pruning and grafting and has they added advantage of extra schema security etc as you will never need to log in to the empty root except for schema updates etc

RE: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest

2005-07-28 Thread Sakari Kouti
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:25 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir] Multiple Domain Trees in a Single Forest Hello All, Looking to decide on an AD domain structurein a single forest. The options on the table are;1. Dedic