AdFind only determines the Directory level, it doesn't look for functional modes or mixed mode. The way I get directory level is through the supportedCapabilities attribute of the rootdse of the DC. Of course it is possible to hit one DC looking for info and I pull the ROOTDSE from that DC and then in the background a referral is processed which ends up getting the info from another DC in another domain (or same domain if looking at app parts).
You can get functionality modes from the rootdse attributes domainFunctionality and forestFunctionality. For all of those, just do an AdFind -rootdse And you will see what I am decoding and logically how I ascertain directory level. Mixed mode versus native you simply use the domain NCs nTMixedDomain attribute. joe -- O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Williams Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? I don't understand where you are seeing this info. Are you referring to the applet that is used to raise the FL? Or something else? As for the "flag" that is used to identify the directory, it is usually a combination of: msDS-Behavior-Version nTMixedDomain supportedCapabilities Or at least, that is the way I put info. such as server and directory in each of my scripts. Just like Joe does in ADFIND and ADMOD. I believe he does it the same way too. Basically, check msDS-Behavior-Version. If it's 0, check nTMixedDomain. If it's 2, check supportedCapabilities to see whether or not it is ADAM (it's ADAM if one of the supportedCapabilities is 1.2.840.113556.1.4.1851 [LDAP_CAP_ACTIVE_DIRECTORY_ADAM_OID]). In my test lab(s), my directory is considered a 2003 directory. In my labs, I used either DOMAIN.MSC or ADMOD to increase the FLs. --Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:45 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? > I've entered this thread late so apologies if the below has already been > stated: > > I recently created a new dev forest, with multiple domains. I too raised > DFL and FFL as soon as all domains were built. > > I do not see the issues you describe and would suggest you download the > scripts available here http://www.jadonex.com/ > > One of the scripts (written by Dean) checks the DFL and FFL for the > forest and across all domains. > > For a manual check, I also look here: > > FFL > === > CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=xxx > Attribute msDS-Behavior-Version > 0=w2k FFL, 1=interim FFL, 2=w2k3 FFL > > DFL > === > CN=<domainName>,CN=Partitions,CN=Configuration,DC=xxx > Attribute msDS-Behavior-Version > 0=w2k DFL, 1=interim DFL, 2=w2k3 DFL > > Hope that helps, > neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Onsomu > Sent: 16 November 2006 14:35 > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? > > I got curios about this and decide to dcpromo my vm image of windows > 2003 R2. > > After the AD installation (which sits at Windows 2000 for domain type) I > raised the functionality for the domain and forest. > > The result for domain type was windows 2000. > > I am not sure it is supposed to be different. > > Anybody out there who can say their install says something else? > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, > CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] > Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? > > Were these clean installs or inplace? > > Bart Van den Wyngaert wrote: >> Well I also have a strange thing... It concerns 2 SBS 2003 systems. >> Some months ago I raised both domain and forrest functional level on >> those boxes. By reading this thread I decided to have a look... >> >> Both tools report the correct OS actually on both boxes. >> >> The only I wonder is a bit that they both report with the gpresult >> tool that the domain type is Windows 2000.... >> >> If I look using GUI, they both report functional level of domain & >> forest being at 2003. >> >> Don't really get actually. Is this related? Normal or missed something > >> when I did raise the functional levels? >> >> Thanks, >> Bart >> >> On 11/10/06, Noah Eiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Good question. DFL = 2003 and FFL = 2003. So it must just be some >>> lingering text string. Does anyone think there is more it? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- nme >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Clingaman, Bruce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:39 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? >>> >>> >>> >>> What does it say under: AD Users & Computers | [right click domain >>> name] | Raise Domain Functional Level... >>> >>> ? >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Noah Eiger >>> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:12 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [ActiveDir] Is it 2000 or 2003? >>> >>> Hi - >>> >>> >>> >>> Several months ago, I upgraded a small, multi-site domain from W2k to > >>> W2k3. Or so I thought. The various markings in the schema indicate >>> that the upgrade was successful. But when I run, for example, >>> gpresult, it reports a Windows 2000 domain. Is this just some flag or > >>> string that did not get set properly or is there really a problem > with the upgrade? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- nme >>> >>> >>> >>> P.S. I also just noticed that when I run netdiag on a new W2k3EN DC, >>> it says "System info: Windows 2000 Server (Build 3790)". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >>> 11/7/2006 >>> >>> >>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>> List archive: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >>> 11/7/2006 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: >>> 11/7/2006 >>> >>> >>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>> List archive: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>> >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> > > -- > Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > http://www.threatcode.com > > If you are a SBSer and you don't subscribe to the SBS Blog... man ... I > will hunt you down... > http://blogs.technet.com/sbs > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > PLEASE READ: The information contained in this email is confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you are not an intended > recipient of this email please notify the sender immediately and delete > your > copy from your system. You must not copy, distribute or take any further > action in reliance on it. Email is not a secure method of communication > and > Nomura International plc ('NIplc') will not, to the extent permitted by > law, > accept responsibility or liability for (a) the accuracy or completeness > of, > or (b) the presence of any virus, worm or similar malicious or disabling > code in, this message or any attachment(s) to it. If verification of this > email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated > this email: (1) is not, and should not be treated or relied upon as, > investment research; (2) contains views or opinions that are solely those > of > the author and do not necessarily represent those of NIplc; (3) is > intended > for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, solicitation > or > offer to buy or sell securities or related financial instruments. NIplc > does not provide investment services to private customers. Authorised and > regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England > no. 1550505 VAT No. 447 2492 35. Registered Office: 1 St > Martin's-le-Grand, > London, EC1A 4NP. A member of the Nomura group of companies. > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
