Expand please on what you are thinking with the Exchange DAGs item. One of the things we will be going through here very soon (within a couple of weeks) is using a new domain name ([email protected] and [email protected] becomes [email protected] and [email protected]) that will need to split between the two existing Exchange environments - but come in through one mx record - and hence gateway.
Are there any good docs/tools that you know of too look at for that issue. We are considering using Quest's (now Dell) Exchange tools to do it. Is there a better/simpler way? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 1:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Exchange] RE: Naming of new domain - .local or .com? >> 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 ---------------------- For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to www.lewisandroca.com. Phoenix (602)262-5311 Reno (775)823-2900 Tucson (520)622-2090 Albuquerque (505)764-5400 Las Vegas (702)949-8200 Silicon Valley (650)391-1380 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone. In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer
