IMHO, LCS puts its configuration system objects in the wrong place, i.e. the system container in the root domain NC. It really should put those types of objects in the configuration NC. It also does a lot of domain-wide ACLs especially if you have a lot of domain. There are configurations that help to moderate this but putting LCS in a large complex forest would be more trouble than it's worth to me. I did it in a 4-domain forest and I didn't like it. It works, but I don't like it. I would recommend a resource forest implementation, but then again, that's just me. :)
Wook -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Extending the schema My personal opinion is you don't put anything into your production schema that you aren't going to really use regardless of what DCs you have. Especially test LCS, I have heard nothing but bad things about its implementation. -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rimmerman, Russ Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 6:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ActiveDir] Extending the schema We're a native win2k domain and are a few DC upgrades away from going to 2003 native mode. We're evaluating Live Communications Server, Sharepoint, Biztalk, etc, etc. Is there any negatives involved in extending the schema if there's a possibility we may scrap these projects all together or is it not such a bad thing like it once was thought to be? 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/
