|
It is neither illogical nor un-safe to add a 2003 domain to
a 2000 forest. As was said, you'll have to prep the schema - but you'll
have to do that anyways to update the existing domains at some point in time. So
read up on the potential schema conflicts and fixes required to do the
forestprep and you'll be very safe (also, you can even start leveraging the
multi-edit features of the 2003 AD Users and Computers MMC running on an XP
workstation against your 2000 domains...).
Whatever the reasons may be that Shawn needs a sub-domain,
it is not illogical at all to start using 2003 to deploy it. I could
imagine he's in the middle of a rollout of a multi-domain forest and is just
about to start rollout of the last domain (not uncommon at all - although in
general I'd suggest for everyone to try to keep your AD infrastructure to a
single domain forest, without a separate root domain...). As such, it
makes perfect sense to start rolling out that sub-domain with 2003 and when the
time is right, update the other 2000 domains to 2003 also.
Quote from below "but you will not
have the infrastructure in place on the parent to take advantage of the Child’s
domain infrastructure" => I'm not sure what's meant by
this. I guess it referrs to the fact, that you can't switch to 2003 forest
functional level at this time (obvious) and thus can't leverage some of the
benefits 2003 brings to the table, which you don't get until you're at that
level (e.g. LVR replication).
But there is a whole wealth of other benefits that you
already gain in the 2003 sub-domain that makes it worth the effort (one of the
main ones being promote from media, but also other things like quotas for object
creation in the domain, UG group caching, DC Rename, Update logon timestamp
attribute, User password on inetOrgperson to name a few).
So - go for it - if you do need a subdomain (which is a
separate discussion), then yes, you're totally fine using 2003 (after doing your
homework on the schemaprep for the 2000
forest).
/Guido
From: Steve Shaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Samstag, 27. September 2003 00:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD If you run forest prep
on the parent domain, this will modify your schema. Which you may or may
not want. It will not hurt if you run forest prep on the parent and then
run domain prep on the child domain. This will provide the necessary
infrastructure needed for the child as well as, the parent when you decide to
upgrade to Windows 2003. Why do you want the child domain upgrade before
your parent? It does not seem logical or
safe. S ***************************************** Active Directory /
Exchange Administrator (W) 503.629.3538
(C) 503.807.4797
(F)
503.629.3674 From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dave
Sayers Just a quick
clarification – the child domain could run in Windows Server 2003 Domain Mode
(as long as all DCs are 2003), but the parent domain cannot, and the forest
can’t be raised to Windows 2003 Forest Mode. Cheers Dave From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of There is no problem in
doing that, but you will not have the infrastructure in place on the parent to
take advantage of the Child’s domain
infrastructure. ***************************************** Active Directory /
Exchange Administrator (W) 503.629.3538
(C) 503.807.4797
(F)
503.629.3674
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Salandra, Justin
A. I do not believe there is any problem with
doing that, I think you just can’t raise the domain functional
level -----Original
Message----- Any issues with having
a Windows 2003 child domain below a Windows 2000 root? |
Title: Windows 2003 AD
- [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Shawn.Hayes
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Brenden Bryan
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD John Reijnders
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Salandra, Justin A.
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Steve Shaff
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Dave Sayers
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Steve Shaff
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD GRILLENMEIER,GUIDO (HP-Germany,ex1)
- RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD Steve Shaff
