If the computers on each site have a range of ip,s that can be logically subnetted, then you can define those logical subnets in AD sites and subnets, even though the actual network is one large subnet.
The subnet information in AD sites and services has nothing to do with routing, it is there to identify which site a specific IP address is associated with. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: ActiveDir-owner Sent: 06/04/2003 04:46 PM To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... If it's really bridged, as in one big, happy IP subnet, how would you create sites ? Maybe I'm just confused...happens a lot lately. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:03 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... I *think* the default is 300 minutes, but can be configured down as low as 15 minutes. -------------------------------------------------------------- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:49 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... > > > Raymond, > > If you can set up meaningful sites (which I guess you can), > then a potential strategy would be to disable the ISTG at > each site and set up manual connections between the remote > sites and one or more DCs at HQ. Ideally you would run DNS on > each of the DCs as well so that clients would keep DC > location traffic local. The only trick then would be to make > sure that when a DC fails at a remote site that the clients > would select a DC at HQ for authentication, instead of any > random DC on the network. I wrote an article for Windows&.NET > magazine a few months ago about this topic; it was in the > March issue I think. There's a copy you can D/L from our > website: > http://www.netpro.com/forum/files/authentication_topology.pdf. > > The replication schedule between sites is by default every 15 > minutes; not quie immediate, but good enough for most > purposes. Its configurable by defining the schedule on the > connection object in AD Sites&Services. > > HTH, > > -gil > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond McClinnis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... > > > Gil, > > That's kind of what I was asking. I was thinking I could > just have all of the remote DC's pull from the DC's here at > HQ, I just wasn't sure what problems I might run into. MS > recommends using a site for each remote which makes sense, > but I wasn't clear on the time periods that sync would occur > during, or whether immediate changes would indeed be immediate. > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil > Kirkpatrick > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:59 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... > > Raymond, Roger, > > Perhaps I'm missing the significance of a "bridged WAN", but > why not disable the KCC and create your own connection > objects to control which DCs replicate with each other? > > -gil > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond McClinnis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 9:06 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication Problems... > > > 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/ > > 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/ 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/
