|
We stand the point short of being fired. J I guess I should not comment
about our deployment since my email directly states where I work. So in short,
it’s fully functional… but… needs a lot of clean up now. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Oh I think it is a rarity that someone
actually talks to the AD people prior to buying and planning implementation of
something that needs AD. When I ran ops I ran into that on a regular basis. The
state of being purchased though didn't sway me much when they said it had to be
implemented. There was only one product that our team got bullied
into mod'ing the schema for and humorously the product was never implemented so
it became the perfect item to point at to say, no, you aren't going to bully a
change into being made. The only reason that one got bullied through was that
it was a security initiative. Everything else was always a battle to shoot down
but was successfully shot. Another one that I guess was bullied into place
though we always knew it would be added was Exchange. However, that project was
seriously slowed down after they came to the AD group and said, this is what
you are going to do and we said no. There was a lot of "who *&^$% does
he think he is?" coming out of Exchange MCS folks after they met me. We
then spent the next year actually fleshing out how things worked and building a
semi-proper delegation model and trying to figure out how to support the
product, none of which had been done prior to the AD folks being wrangled in
and told this is what you are going to be doing. Had the AD group not pushed
back and fought, it probably would have been one more screwed up Exchange
implementation. As it is, it turned out to be an Exchange deployment that runs
at 5 nines without clustering and no confusion on who supports what and how. It all goes back to the general argument
of do you just sit there and do what you are told or is your job to point out
things that you don't think are right and if the latter, how strongly do you
debate the points? My standpoint was always that I am the one that is going to
have to deal with this when it is blowing up left and right, it will be done to
my satisfaction up front. If I am not directly impacted by the possible issues,
I can be immensely more genial about people doing stupid things. I won't ignore
the stupid thing, but I won't outright refuse to be involved either. Everyone
has the option to pick their own poison. On the ACLs stuff. That is crap. If admins
don't have an idea how to do it, they (Cisco) should document their stuff
better. I wish I could recall the stupid things I saw with it but it was pretty
bad. The one place it was running, it was running on its own standalone forest
and had no ties at all to the main production AD. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Our movement for Cisco Unity was based
strictly on a wholesale move to Cisco VoIP solutions all the way around.
Apparently there’s some cost savings there somewhere. I
dunno… regarding the comment joe made about not ever being in your ad
environment. Concur 100%. You ever find that often times the
products are already bought before your input is requested? I dunno if I have bigger problems with
cisco being in the software space or their horrible turnout of applications
after they’ve acquired them. Unity, call manager, etc… one
uses ad… one uses dirsync in a proprietary ldap server… odd stuff
like that. Not to mention, it took a nda and massive levels of coercion
to get cisco to fess up to what the exact permissions were that are required in
order for unity to work successfully. That was a good month long
ordeal. Unfortunately nda - so I can’t really speak or blog on the
exact stuff to correct it. Their reasoning? Most admins have no
idea how to configure the ACLs properly to support their application. I
digress. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi The price tag will definitely drop as soon
as Microsoft releases Exchange 12 with UM built in. But, it's not THAT
expensive today, and there are some great business pluses to it. We had no
problems showing ROI on VOIP or UM. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith It's a feature with lots of "gee
whiz!" appeal, but once people see the price tag, the response is usually
"ouch!" We are still waiting for the "year of
UM". I'm betting on 2007. :-) From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] I think this is definitely a case where Ed
Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Entirely your option. :) Windows 3.11 and
Windows NT are really not the same product. Note I am not saying I won't use cisco
routers because they sucked 12 years ago. As someone else pointed out, software
isn't cisco's ball of wax. There is obviously a little bit of a scary point
there when you consider though that the IOS is software... Also as you mentioned, it wasn't created or
even modified much by cisco. So I don't expect it is much different now than
what I saw. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi And I will never run Windows because 3.11
just wasn't that great at networking. ;-) From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Being the best available doesn't make
something good and doesn't need a lot of work. :o) It just means it is better than the other
sucky alternatives. I haven't seen unity in years but when I
last saw it, it had me swearing about how bad it was. I seem to recall saying
something along the lines of that will never be in any AD I ever manage. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi Not sure why you don't like Unity, it's
the best unified messaging app there is right now. Actually has been for over 5
years. I believe that the reason it;s as good as it is, is that it was not
created or even modified much by Cisco, they simply bought a really good
product and left it be for the most part. As for the schema updates, it didn't work.
We made the registry change and it did work. I don't see how that would be tied
to the app as no changes were made there. But who knows. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm. I need to think about that
again. I think I only saw this behavior in the lab where all the servers
were upgraded instead of wipe and replace. In production, we upgraded
initially then did a replacement effort later. More to the point, UGH Cisco Unity…
I wish to Christ they’d stick to hardware and stop venturing into
software… From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Was it maybe the app itself disallowing
the update? Did you try to just modify the schema to see if it would work? Say
change the rangeupper of cn or something like that and then change it back.
Something innocuous. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yep, same here. I think upgraded
scenarios have this. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi Upgraded. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Upgraded to 2003 or fresh install? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Vander Kooi I just did this last week to install Cisco
Unity and I still had to enable schema updates in Windows 2003 even though the
user was in Schema Admins. I was under the same impression as Travis, but after
enabling updating in the registry it worked fine. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Did you work this out Travis? If not, I would recommend pulling up the
sysinternal registry and file monitors as well as tracing the AD calls. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi,
I
am having some problems updating the schema for Avaya Unified Messaging. It is
my thinking that in Windows 2003 the schema is already enabled for updates as
long as you are in the Schema Admins group. In Windows 2000 you had to enable
the Schema to be updated. Am I correct or misguided? Thanks!
|
Title: Schema Updates
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Marcus.Oh
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates joe
- Re: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Amit Singh
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates joe
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates joe
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Tony Murray
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Medeiros, Jose
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates Derek Harris
