Yeah.. true.. particular if you're dealing with large numbers of CA's. Being able to map them out to individual OU's is a nice feature, instead of just fire and forget. Been thinking about having a naming convention for CA's so that I don't forget what they did =)
Did you map across from Exchange-->AD/Windows first in the two-way CA's and then back again (i.e. default)... ? Regards Mylo -----Original Message----- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 15 May 2002 09:43 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors Fair point. We initially used ldap filters in our CAs to populate particular OUs and as a result had to use a complex mixture of Primary and Secondary one-way CAs. I've now reduced them to non-filtered two-way CAs now that the initial bulk of replication has all happened; largely for ease of support by my colleagues and future exchange/AD admins here. The most useful thing I found was to have a large whiteboard next to my desk with a diagram of all the CAs! This ensured I didn't set up duplicate paths and that all recipients would get replicated. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 15 May 2002 08:30 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors > > > Mark, > > I've seen the above document before .. and stuck with one-way > CA's after having problems with two-way connections where > processing/updating of a large number of objects is involved. > In addition to your comment concerning separate CA's, I'd > also add that mapping sites/recipients across to OU's on a > one-to-one basis CA wise can be beneficial, particularly if > you're dealing with a large number of foreign recipients > within the 5.5 org. > > Regards, > Mylo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 14 May 2002 18:46 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors > > > Except that 2 one-way agreements are specifically advised > against by MS. As you've obviously seen you can get away > with them sometimes (and we have in the past) but I wouldn't > actively recommend it especially as it comes up in the MS top > ten list of directory service support calls. > > See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q303180 > > Go for one-way initially by all means but then turn it into a > two-way by checking the appropriate box on the CA. We used > separate CAs for MBXs, DLs, CRs to divert them into separate > containers. > > Regarding your original question you will eventually want to > repoint your other 55 Site and Directory Replication > Connectors at the first sites E2K SRS server, so there's no > harm in doing this asap rather than wait for the last server to go. > > Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 14 May 2002 16:14 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors > > > > > > You could replace the single connector with a two-way one but > > I'd just have separate connection agreements for each way. > > It's not the most robust (ADC) piece of software in the world > > and does make troubleshooting a little easier. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 14 May 2002 17:09 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors > > > > > > OK, initial one-way from exchange to AD.. Then replace with > > a two way agreement. This means that > > all updates to exchange accounts must be done via the ex.5.5? > > Correct? > > > > Ron > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Active Directory Connectors > > > > > > Just a suggestion... > > > > Set up one way connectors .. you'll likely save yourself a > > bit of pain in the process. Perform the synch out of 5.5 into > > AD first and once happy with the results, create another > > connection agreement back into the 5.5 environment. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 14 May 2002 16:04 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Active Directory Connectors > > > > > > Have a 5.5 site with two domains (sites) connected via site > > connector. Getting ready to install the ADC in my site. I will be > > setting up the two way connection agreement for my site to > > the Active Directory. I will replace the 1st server in my > > site after all > > other servers have been upgraded/replaced. The site > > connector between both > > sites should stay intact until I remove the 1st server!! > > Hopefully!!! At a later date, I plan on upgrading the other > > site and move > > them into my domain. We share the GAL so we can > > see all users. > > > > Question: Will I have to do anything with the other site > > until I get them > > ready to join my domain? > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may > contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC > unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, > please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or > disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it > and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent > or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
