Yeah understood. The why is the simple explanation of things would break. It is why the requirements exist in the first place for the functional level of the domains. Anything that can't support that domain level can't work in that level forest so are disallowed forever of becoming part of it.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FFL 2003 is one-size-fit-all? M & A is certainly one of the scenarios. The most pressing need for me to know the reasoning behind it is the possibility that I may have to stand in front of a bunch of folks who would want to know "WHY". Being able to technically articulate the reasoning is always very helpful. Having a supporting document from the relevant authorities is always priceless. Mind you, I am not offering an opinion on the feature or the restriction, and, as Guido just pointed out, I agree that it is a practical one. Hope you understand. Sincerely, Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT Microsoft MVP - Directory Services www.readymaids.com - we know IT www.akomolafe.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of David Adner Sent: Tue 12/20/2005 1:05 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FFL 2003 is one-size-fit-all? Just out of curiosity, but do you find this behavior unusual? Would you think it's still reasonable to be able to introduce, for example, a 2000 DFL Domain in a 2003 FFL Forest? Were you thinking of a merger/migration scenario where perhaps you need to migrate in a 2000 Domain into your 2003 Forest? > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FFL 2003 is one-size-fit-all? > > Thanks, Joe. I'd just take it as a given - especially now that you've > chimed in :)) - and go with the flow. > > > Sincerely, > > Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT > Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > www.readymaids.com - we know IT > www.akomolafe.com > Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > Yesterday? -anon > > ________________________________ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe > Sent: Tue 12/20/2005 12:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] FFL 2003 is one-size-fit-all? > > > > I have not seen much documentation on it but it is "sort of" > mentioned here > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;32269 > 2). The specific mention is only "After the forest functional level is > raised, domain controllers that are running earlier operating systems > cannot be introduced into the forest. For example, if you raise forest > functional levels to Windows Server 2003, domain controllers that are > running Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 Server cannot be added to the > forest.". > > Personally, I would take the fact that you can only add domain > functional level domains as a given... A forest functional mode forest > is a forest which has to have all domains at domain functional level. > Once there, you don't get to go backwards so any new added domains > would HAVE to be added at > 2003 domain functional level. > > joe > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:54 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ActiveDir] FFL 2003 is one-size-fit-all? > > I don't remember reading this in any of the materials I've seen to > date. Is it true that after flipping the Forest Functional Level to > Windows 2003, any subsequent domain added to the Forest after the flip > will default to DFL 2003? This appears to be the case in my tests, and > I am wondering if I am doing something wrong. > > If this is correct, does anyone have any material discussing this > behavior - or know why this is so? Of course, I am aware of the > requirements to "get to" > FFL 2003. I am just looking for a discussion/documentation of the > restriction (if any) of introducing new domains into that environment. > > Thanks > > > 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/ 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/ 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/
