My copy hasn't gotten here yet... Darn it! I will be sure to review it. Todd Myrick
-----Original Message----- From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:26 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Transitivity Hey Todd, I wrote an article in the March 2003 Windows & .NET mag that discusses how to control authentication traffic in this kind of scenario... it may help as well. -gil -----Original Message----- From: Myrick, Todd (NIH/CIT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Transitivity Thanks, The first Link pretty much confirms what I already knew, and I think I will go with the design I put forth. Todd Myrick -----Original Message----- From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site Link Transitivity Todd, There can be problems with manually designating a BH for replication - there is no automatic failover if the BH becomes unavailable. You must manually designate another server as being the BH for the replication sites. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodt echnol/windowsserver2003/proddocs/server/dssite_make_bridgehead.asp (Though the above is stated as Server 2003, it applies to 2000 as well) IOW - unless you have a specific need or lots (read - 100's) of sites, the KCC works well. Have you read through the Branch Office Design Guide? Even for environments that are not as large as what is dealt with in those guides, the experience is invaluable. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodt echnol/AD/windows2000/deploy/adguide/default.asp Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT Microsoft MVP - Active Directory Associate Expert Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd > (NIH/CIT) > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 7:56 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > I have a question about peoples experience disabling Site Link > Transitivity. > > I am trying to achieve a hub and spoke design where the spoke sites > only replicate with the Hub's. This is to reduce the complexities of > configuring firewalls in our enterprise but also to optimize > replication so it is easier to see where replication failures are > occurring, etc. I want to verify what I believe is the affect of > disabling site link transitivity. If we disable Site Link > Transitivity, will it stop a spoke DC from replicating directly to > another spoke DC, and only allow it to replicate where it has direct > site links? Also if we really wanted to get controlling about who > replicates and where. Would people suggest making GC's > Replication Bridge Heads, so that they get targeted more frequently? > > Thanks, > > Todd Myrick > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
