One more point to add and I will consider the matter closed.  The BHS should
be a GC in a multi-domain forest.

Toddler

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cliffe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Bridgehead in a single-server site

Thanks everyone.  All replies (opinions) were consistent and are summed
up effectively by the latest from Todd below.

For those interested --> Some brief detective work here has revealed
that, historically, there were some valid reasons for manually selecting
a BH in several sites.  At the time of my post I had thought EVERY site
here was configured that way, and so thought this was the norm
("assumption" once again a foolish path!).  The MS documentation and
your recent replies indicate we should consider a change, especially
since none of those old reasons apply anymore.  Thanks again!

-DaveC
Reuters CIO Infrastructure


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd
(NIH/CC/DNA)
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 6:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Bridgehead in a single-server site

There are two reasons why you select preferred BHS.

1.  You have some security / political requirement to direct traffic to
a particular server.  (Firewall, Core service DC vs child domain).

2.  You don't want the other servers to be targets as BHS.
(Underpowered box, etc.)

Todd Myrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Santhosh Sivarajan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 4:18 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Bridgehead in a single-server site

I completely agree with Gil's comment.  Let KCC to handle the BH
selection.  Otherwise you have to manually select the BH server(s). 
You can manually select more than one BH servers if you want.

Santhosh Sivarajan
MCSE(W2K3/W2K/NT4),MCSA(W2K3/W2K/MSG),CCNA,Network+
Houston, TX



On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:52:41 -0700, Gil Kirkpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is there a good reason to NOT let the KCC pick the BH for you
automatically?
> That way you get some failover if it craps out for some reason. 
> Otherwise you'll have to watch the DC constantly to reset the BH to 
> make sure replication continues to work. In Windows 2003, the KCC is 
> pretty good
about
> picking the best server as a BH.
>  
> -gil
> ________________________________
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cliffe
> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] Bridgehead in a single-server site
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
>  
>     Just curious...any opinions on denoting a server as a bridgehead 
> in a site where it is currently the only defined server?  We were 
> thinking that it then wouldn't be necessary down the road when other 
> DCs are added.  Is there any harm in this?  Is there any good in this?

> ; - )
>  
> (Forest and domain functional levels are Win2003)
>  
> -DaveC
> Reuters CIO Infrastructure
>  
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> 
> To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit 
> http://www.reuters.com/productinfo
> 
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual 
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the 
> views of Reuters Ltd.
>
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/


-----------------------------------------------------------------
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

To find out more about Reuters Products and Services visit
http://www.reuters.com/productinfo 

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to