Title: Message
>Once you do go W2K3 – there are now post-upgrade fixes for W2K3 too which you will need
 
Paresh- Could you elaborate on any DC-specific fixes for W2K3?
 
Thanks
 
/bob


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paresh Nhathalal
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 4:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

There were few LSASS and DNS related fixes in SP4 which you need to be aware of (it is always the best practice to keep your servers (DC’s) updated with the latest SP).

Once you do go W2K3 – there are now post-upgrade fixes for W2K3 too which you will need J

 

Thanks - Paresh

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil
Sent: 03 March 2005 12:30
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

 

Thanks for confirming my assumptions.

 

We plan to move to w2k3 in the coming months, so the need for SP4 is removed.

 

Why do you advocate SP4, however? Is it relevant to the questions asked?

 

neil

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paresh Nhathalal
Sent: 03 March 2005 12:18
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

  1. Recommended that you move up to SP4 on W2k DC's
  2. When you decomm the DC in site B (using DCPROMO) enure that FRS member objects is gone too
  3. DC in Site A will automatically cover Site B (without DC) by registering the required SRV in DNS (provided that you have not disabled auto-site coverage AND provided that B and A has the lowest costings than other sites)
  4. Auto-site coverage algorithm will select the candidate DC's based on GC's/Costs etc...there are articles on Auto-Site coverage on MS website...

 

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adams, Kenneth W (Ken)
Sent: 03 March 2005 12:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

 

My understanding of sites is that each site must have at least one DC.  If my understanding is correct, your planned action to decomm the Site B DC would lead to the removal of Site B and its incorporation into Site A.  As long as the computers in Site B have the proper DNS server addresses, you should have no problem (note the operative word 'should').

 

Ken Adams, MCSE 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ruston, Neil
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:04 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: [ActiveDir] DNS and site coverage behaviour

I am about to investigate and test DNS site coverage and would like to seek the views and opinions of others.

Scenario:
W2k DCs (SP3)
Multiple domains - all w2k native
Location1 has 2 buildings, currently each building being represented by a separate site. Let's call them siteA and siteB.

Currently, each of these 2 sites has a DC installed locally.
SiteB has a site link with siteA (cost 10)
SiteB has a site link to siteC [at some other location] (cost 100)

Proposal and requirements:
Decomm the DC in siteB and ensure that the DC in siteA provides DNS coverage to users in siteB [I won't explain my reasoning for the decomm - that would detract from my main point :) ]

Questions:
Will the DC in siteA need to be configured such that it auto covers DNS wrt siteB (registry change)?
Or
Will that DC in siteA automatically cover for siteB in DNS, given that siteA has the lowest cost link to siteB?

I had always assumed the latter to be true, but this view has been challenged and the former was suggested as necessary, instead :)

Any offers?

Thanks,
neil

Neil Ruston - MVP dir services

==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network. Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

Reply via email to