RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD

[Steve Shaff]

Title: Windows 2003 AD

Guido,   He can do what ever he wants.  All I am saying is that his is going to be modifying the schema on the parent, as well as, the sub-domain.  Why put all that effort into a child domain where you are not going to get the benefits to the parent domain?  Yes, there are a lot of benefits that windows 2003 give you, like SHADOW COPY, etc.  Bottom line, he needs to understand the implications in doing this action, what is does to the schema, policy, etc... Before proceeding.   S   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of GRILLENMEIER,GUIDO (HP-Germany,ex1) Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD   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   ***************************************** Steve Shaff Active Directory / Exchange Administrator Corillian Corporation (W) 503.629.3538 (C) 503.807.4797 (F) 503.629.3674   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Sayers Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD   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 Steve Shaff Sent: 26 September 2003 16:35 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD   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.   ***************************************** Steve Shaff Active Directory / Exchange Administrator Corillian Corporation (W) 503.629.3538 (C) 503.807.4797 (F) 503.629.3674   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Salandra, Justin A. Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 7:39 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD   I do not believe there is any problem with doing that, I think you just can’t raise the domain functional level   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] Windows 2003 AD   Any issues with having a Windows 2003 child domain below a Windows 2000 root?