We do, at least, have each of our remote sites with a different IP range since the network USED to be routed (long story short, our core processor uses a serial printing protocol that was not routable at the time) We are redesigning the network this year so that we can unf#$%^ ourselves. But in the meantime changes we make don't replicate, or un-replicate.
On a side note, our network has broken even the most confident of men, the consultant that just left was "on top of his game" before he worked on our network. But he left a broken and battered man with a lot of self-doubt (and as a good friend). And if the guy who 'designed' this network were still here Roger, having what you mentioned happen to him would be the LEAST of his worries :-). Thanks again, Raymond McClinnis Network Administrator Provident Credit Union -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 8:15 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... There are no good topologies for a bridged WAN. Including the time I saw a three building campus bridged by OC3 (155MBps) lines. Performance was still an issue. Is there any logical segmentation that can be done, such as each office has its own block of IPs? That would allow you to create AD Sites and use that to control replication traffic. Without that, I'd say you're screwed. I do think you should have your network engineer fired, then shot, hung, and sent to the Russian Front! Roger -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond McClinnis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... > > > Hello all, > > Does anyone know a good topology for a bridged WAN. Once > everyone picks > up their jaws, I'll continue. We have approximately 18 DC's > at remote > sites on various low bandwidth lines (from 384K to T-1). By > default all the servers are trying to talk to each other and > there have been instances of us removing users from groups > and the user returning to the group. > > I had thought of pointing all the remote controllers to the > DC's here at HQ. and having the ones here at HQ talk amongst > themselves. Is this a good idea, or is there a better > solution. I appreciate any input y'all can give me. > > > Thanks in Advance, > > Raymond McClinnis > Network Administrator > Provident Credit Union > > 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/
