Hello All,
Looking to decide on an AD
domain structure
in a single forest. The options on the table are;
1. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and child domains (i.e. a.x.com,
b.x.com etc.) based on the regions.
2. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and other domains (i.e. a.com and
b.com etc.) based on the regions.
The potential risk for the second option that has been identified is
that the deep LDAP search against a regular DC instead of a GC in one
domain for a resource in the another domain may not return any results.
However, the client intends to take the risk and mitigate it by
deploying enough Global Catalogs (GC). In a nutshell, we would like to go with a disjointed namespace for the multiple domains within the forest. However, I need pro\cons to this approach. In addition, does the introduction of conditional forwarding and stub zones mitigate many of the issues that plauged disjointed namespaces?
in a single forest. The options on the table are;
1. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and child domains (i.e. a.x.com,
b.x.com etc.) based on the regions.
2. Dedicated root domain (x.com) and other domains (i.e. a.com and
b.com etc.) based on the regions.
The potential risk for the second option that has been identified is
that the deep LDAP search against a regular DC instead of a GC in one
domain for a resource in the another domain may not return any results.
However, the client intends to take the risk and mitigate it by
deploying enough Global Catalogs (GC). In a nutshell, we would like to go with a disjointed namespace for the multiple domains within the forest. However, I need pro\cons to this approach. In addition, does the introduction of conditional forwarding and stub zones mitigate many of the issues that plauged disjointed namespaces?
Thanks!
Rob
