|
Yeah. That is good reason to get a gmail account.
;o)
Plus I think every search on google (or is it every google
on google) and mail account on google gives steveb a fresh kick in the shorts to
work harder at winning.
joe From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates 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 joe
- RE: [ActiveDir] Schema Updates joe
- 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
