They are not functional per se in the Exchange environment, but be advised if you don't include those in the join, then they will be changed in the GAL that the 2003 user sees, but not the GAL that the 5.5 user sees meaning that users will get different views of other mailbox users during the migration: not a pretty thing to explain to users IMHO.
A better way to deal with this, in my opinion, is to fix the 5.5 GAL data. It's easy enough to do in your environment as you can grab the data from the Active Directory for those fields that are authoritative (i.e. Title, department, phone number, etc) and update them in 5.5 prior to running the ADC. The advantage is that you wouldn't have to worry about any tricky customization of the ADC which is likely as much work or more than updating the 5.5 data first. That obviously depends on the amount of accounts you're dealing with, but... Once you've updated the 5.5 directory with the correct processes and data, introduce the ADC as default feeling confident that you've used the up to date information. Politics aside, this could be relatively easy with a couple of scripts, especially since you have a way to link the objects with on another. You could also use CSVDE if you don't want to introduce scripting and would rather use excel as your data manipulator. This way you wouldn't have to spend all that time in the lab tweaking the ADC to get it the way you want it, you won't have to worry about Microsoft supporting it should you need it, and you take care of the process issues that led to disparate information in the first place. Without scripts, shouldn't take more than about 30-60 minutes to complete the update which is likely much faster and safer (with the other benefits noted above) than tweaking the ADC. Al -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 10:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] adc replication Al, thanks 4 reply to this topic I am duly advised on yr view of the 5.5 directory being authoritative for the "mail-related attributes" and will leave alias well alone !! what is fact though the 5.5 directory has alot of data such as Title , Department that are inconsistent in there content - certainly less current than AD - hence no desire to replicate this data. i take it that these are informational as opposed to functional in an exchange organisation thanks for yr help on this GT On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:33:00 -0400 , "Mulnick, Al" wrote: > > Hmmm.... This is interesting. You're saying that your client-visible data > is less reliable than your Active Directory data? Really? Is that > perception echoed by your end users? If not, I think you may want to > rethink that approach. > > Mail, mailnickname, etc are all very important to Exchange operation; > changing them would open the door for problems in your implementation, some > of which you may not see immediately. However, alias field is not > guaranteed unique for what it's worth. It's RDN is unique in that > path, but > the only fields that are guaranteed to be unique in a 5.5 directory > are the > X.400 and SMTP addresses. Outside of that, any field out there can be > duplicated in a separate RDN. > > One thing that may help is to change your thinking on what you are > about to > do. You are NOT merging two directories. You are joining two directories. > There's a subtle yet important distinction that will help you better > understand what's important to you and what's not. For example, if you join > directories, you are in essence making one larger directory. If you > merge them, it indicates a one time update of both and then getting rid of one. > You are not doing a one timer here. > > When you join directory services, you have to decide which is authoratative > for which attributes. In the case of ADC, the default is to assume > that 5.5 > is authoratative for mail-related attributes. Why? Likely because > it's more > disruptive to the end user population to change the GAL. Since the > GAL is built on mail-related attributes, it makes a LOT of sense to go > down this path. > > > My advice? Fix your BAS 5.5 directory attributes prior to joining the > two directories. Don't let the ADC be the bad guy else you'll be > chasing that forever and a day. The ADC purpose is to help you join > the directories in support of upgrade, not to fix years of bad > processes and dirty data. If you try to use it that way, you may not be very happy with the results. > > That said, you can modify what the ADC will consider 5.5 authoratative for. > The reason why you would do this is to prevent 5.5 from overwriting > good data. Since it's a join and not a merge :) it will the > authoratative attributes will also overwrite the 5.5 entries. But you > can control which attribute is considered authoratative if you know > what you're trying to accomplish and it's impact. > > I don't advise changing the alias attribute to anyone I've done this > for because it's not seen by the regular Active Directory admins > anyway unless they have the Exchange dll's loaded or they're looking > via some other method > outside of ADUC. It's non-consequential for anything other than a mailer. > > The attribute that usually gives the most heartburn is the > display-name <--> > displayName join and you can find information about how to properly > map this > change in KB's. > > > -AJM > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] adc replication > > Bill, thanks for prompt reply on this one. > > as per previous post we are looking for a one-off hit of replication > from > 5.5 directory to facilitate the "mail-enabling" of AD users who have entries > in 5.5 directory. > > there is no intention to replicate the AD directory to 5.5 based on a rapid > move of mailboxes to a ex2k3 server, where as you say we are in a > native mode of operation. > > the proposal of not merging the alias attribute data is not borne out > of a specific reason NOT to do it, but more an approach of merging to > the AD only > where explicitly required. > > this is also based on a tenet that the Ex 5.5 directory has data that > is already in the AD and which is generally of a "lower quality" than > the AD > > i suppose this then comes down to an understanding of the requirement > for the mailnickname attribute. > > as i remember (all those years ago) the Alias attribute could be used > by an > Outlook client as the data to supply when setting up the profile. > > not too sure of other applications that used it / mailnickname attribute. > > Thanks > > GT > > > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:51:39 -0400, "Brown, Bill [contractor]" wrote: > > > > > Graham, > > > > If I remember my E55 correctly - and I think I do - then the ALIAS > > in > > E55 has a one-to-one relationship with a mailbox. There can not be > > duplicate ALIASes in E55. I do believe that the same holds true in > > AD. This is easily proved out in the test bed. Assuming that you > > are going to setup a two-way ADC - you can assign which way you want > > the first replication to go. From Exchange to AD - or from AD to > > Exchange. And yes, ALIAS [in > E55] > > does go mailNickname in AD. > > > > I mean the entire process of putting up the ADC would be to insure > > that AD and E55 are working with the same information - until such > > time as you can remove all of the E55 components in the Exchange > > organization and proceed to a native mode of operation. Unless you > > are drastically changing your Exchange system - I can not understand > > why you would not want the E55 > ALIAS > > in AD... > > > > R/Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 7:30 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] adc replication > > > > dear all, further to earlier item on impact on the AD directory > > following ADC synchronization. > > > > have been through the Exchange 5.5 directory and found the > > attributes that 'map' to the mailbox properties. > > > > am quite comfortable about disabling the merging of most attribute > > data using the Default ADC > > > > one that i am less comfortable with is the merging of the alias > > (attribute UID ?) value into the AD > > > > from the schema map file this looks to be mapped to the "mailnickname" > > attribute in AD > > > > can anyone confirm whether this is in fact a correct interpretation > > of the attribute mapping and if so perhaps a view on the impact of > > NOT merging this data into the AD ?? > > > > TIA > > > > GT > > 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/
