|
I
didn't take it as snotty towards myself, but towards another list member (Brian
in this case). As I said before, my bad.
And I
think we've used up enough bits on this topic. Agreed?
-g
Coffee? How did you know?
My reputation preceded me again :)
In any case, I went back and read my
original post. Flippant? maybe. Snotty, definitely not. As to Gil taking
umbrage at it... I still don't get it.
Make that double espresso, please. No milk.
Sincerely,
D�j� Ak�m�l�f�,
MCSE MCSA
MCP+I
www.akomolafe.com
www.iyaburo.com
Do you
now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of Rogers, Brian
Sent: Mon 7/14/2003 4:34 PM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
Woahhhhhhhh was my
comment about my completely missing something obviously very pertinent to my
discussion here.
As in "holy
crap" or "Damn where did that come from" or "Wow...I completely missed
that"
Incredulous?
Lol....you need to lay off the coffee J
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14,
2003 7:36
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
I guess
it's my time to say "Woahhhhh...."
Gil, my
response was not in any way directed at you. It was directed
at Brian and, if
anything, it was an attempt at levity, not snottiness. So, where did the slam
come from?
I'd think that if anything is
snotty, it would be Brian's increduluos "Woahhhhh....", not mine. Don't you
think?
As for
"Site coverage" in
Win2K being equal to GC-Less config in Win2K3, I firmly believe they are apple
and orange. They are both fruits, but not the same.
Sincerely,
D�j� Ak�m�l�f�,
MCSE MCSA
MCP+I
www.akomolafe.com
www.iyaburo.com
Do you now realize that Today is
the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Gil Kirkpatrick
Sent: Mon 7/14/2003 2:49 PM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
I may
have missed something, but the snotty tone seems
inappropriate...
In any
case, to reduce the apparent confusion:
GC-less
sites have always been possible with AD since W2K. The facility
is called site coverage.
GC-less
logon is new in WS2K3 and occurs because DCs can cache group memberships. This
allows the DC to assemble a complete token even if a GC isn't available. This
functionality has nothing to do with application
partitions.
Application
partitions are a mechanism where you can host replicas of specific
subtrees in the domain on any set of DCs in the forest. The subtrees may not
contain security principals such as users, groups, and computers, When you
create a zone in WS2K3, you can elect to configure it as an application
partition and replicate the data to specific DCs in the
forest.
-----Original
Message-----
From: deji Agba
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:19
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
Yes,
you did indeed miss it. So, go find it. Yourself, this time with no
help.
Application
partition is the new partion in E2K3 which, in addtion to
The Domain,
Configuration and Schema Partitions now make up the
AD database in E2K3.
It
is this change that makes it possible now to deploy GC-less Remote Sites.
The Application Partition is SHARED(replicated) to ALL DCs in the Domain,
including designated DCs in the Forest.
Sincerely,
D�j� Ak�m�l�f�,
MCSE MCSA
MCP+I
www.akomolafe.com
www.iyaburo.com
Do you now realize that Today is
the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday?
-anon
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rogers, Brian
Sent: Mon 7/14/2003 11:53
AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
Woahhhhh....I musta
missed that document. AD integrated DNS can now be separated from
regular replication?
Gotta
link? Book? Paper? Smokesignal? Morse? J
-----Original
Message-----
From: Rick
Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:28
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
This
would be correct. But, remember that in the replication strategy for
Win2k - data goes to every DC regardless if it's a DNS server or not -
because once it's DNS-integrated, it's now a part of the AD data. This
trend is broken in Win2k3, where application partitions can handle DNS - and
do. The DomainDNS and ForestDNS are just that, for all intents and
purposes. They are AD Application parts handling DNS for just DNS
servers - and no DNS data need be on the DCs, unless it too, is a DNS server
once the full DNS app partition is configured.
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP
- Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogers, Brian
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:10
AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
I was
looking more along the lines of replication traffic. However since the
zone is replicated within AD....there shouldn't be any additional (or if so
very minimal) replication traffic between the DNS servers other than the
normal AD replication traffic correct?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Roger
Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:58
AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
I
always configure every DC as a DNS server. I consider that if a location
requires a DC, it also requires local DNS.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad
- MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr.
Systems Administrator
Inovis
Inc.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
Rogers, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:39
AM
To:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [ActiveDir] Quick AD
integrated DNS question :)
1.
When
configuring an AD Integrated DNS zone, at least one DC in each site
should be running DNS? Or all DCs should be running DNS?
Would it matter either way?
|
