> > > Thanks Chris, I wont call you Shirley again, > > > > > If the only bridgehead server in a routing group is down, > there are no > > other routes for the mailbox server to choose. > > > > > >So a mailbox server can not see bridgehead servers outside of its > > >routing group? Correct?
Well, whether it can or can't is really kind of a moot point because it need to pass the message to the specified bridgead(s) in its site to be passed on. > > >This is a shame especially as the network could still be > in place and > > >there is a perfectly good bridgehead server that you can > physically connect > >to Exchange only knows about the messaging links defined for it though, and with the only bridgehead in its site down, as far as that Exchange server is concerned it is cut off from the rest of the world. > > No, LSA is shared between all servers in a routing group, only one > > server is the routing group master for the link state data. > > > > > I see! > > > > > > > Surely the mailbox server would need to have knowledge of the > > > bridgehead servers and their priority? > > > > It does and stop calling me Shirley. > > > > The key point being that they only have knowledge of the > bridgehead > > > servers > >in their routing group ? Right? No, I think[1] that they have knowledge of servers outside of their site, but they also know what paths they are allowed to use to deliver mail, and with the bridgehead down, there are no remaining paths. > > Donald Livengood an HP consultant gave a 2 hour presentation on the > > subject in fast talkin redneck at a Compaq Exchange Academy I > > attended. I think he might have given a similar presentation at MEC > > last year or the year before.. Might check Microsoft's > website for the > > slide deck. > > > > > I found this > > > http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/using/training/MEC00_track2.asp > > > Thanks very much. > > > > > With only 3 mailbox servers I ponder the need for > bridgehead servers > > or for separate routing groups. > > > > > > The setup is actually a bit larger than this and the design of > > > multiple routing groups was put in before I started. > > > > > > FYI the set up is: > > > 3 routing groups each routing group is centred in a regional hub > > > office (3 > > different parts of the world). > > > > > > Each hub office has several other office locations in > their region > > > some with mailbox server(s). So in total about three > mailbox servers > > > per region. How big are the pipes and servers. I've seen a lot of E2K designs where it was clear the architects were stuck in 5.5 ways of thinking. I'm not saying that is the case for you, but there's always that possibility. In answer to the bigger question I think.. You can add more bridgeheads with higher routing costs to provide redundancy in message routing while still maintaining primary message traffic routes for normal circumstances. [1] Think, don't have time to verify at the moment, but either way I don't think it matters to the answer. _________________________________________________________________ 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]
