>> I understand that M&A happens, but I would think at that point forest/domain >> trusts would be implemented, and a migration of machines during a plan.
In my personal experience, and only referring to my personal experience, that's not been the case. It's always been "the IT guys will figure it out" and the network split happens "over the next 3 days". >> How does using a nonsense forest/domain name help with that process? >> Serious question - I might be facing something like that soonish. It makes the domain name inconsequential. You take a forest root DC, the other side takes a forest root DC. You build your own forests. Clean out the cruft. Done. Not to get into supportability questions here, but you could do very much the same thing with Exchange and DAG members, to split up email. After thinking about it for 90 seconds, I can absolutely do it in a way that would be supportable. Of course, this is really the fault of Microsoft, for not providing usable (REASONABLY usable) tools for domain and forest manipulation. Then again: there be dragons. The test matrix would be horrendous. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Exchange] RE: Naming of new domain - .local or .com? On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would not use .local. It’s now on a list of reserved TLDs (after all > that foo-fa-raw with Apple’s BonJour). > > > > And I probably wouldn’t use anything tied to my company name, either. > As you see, mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures happen. > > > > How about pot.pan? Or ice.cube? > > > > You can use whatever UPN you want for your users. There is no reason > they should ever see it. I recommend you match your UPN to your > primary email address. Kurt
