Marvin the paranoid Andriod:.... "Brain the size of a planet and all I end up doing is parking space ships"
Leo > Reading this email reminds me of a conversation between Ford Prefect and > Arthur Dent: > > FP: "...it's unpleasantly like being drunk." > AD: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?" > FP: "You ask a glass of water." > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > > Posted At: Thursday, May 16, 2002 05:02 PM > > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List > > Conversation: How about this as an option? > > Subject: RE: How about this as an option? > >=20 > >=20 > > > Well, whether it can or can't is really kind of a moot=20 > > point because=20 > > > it need to pass the message to the specified bridgead(s) in=20 > > its site=20 > > > to be passed on. > >=20 > > >> That clears that up, thanks. > >=20 > > > No, I think[1] that they have knowledge of servers outside of their=20 > > > site, but they also know what paths they are allowed to use=20 > > to deliver=20 > > > mail, and with the bridgehead down, there are no remaining paths. > > =20 > > >>Makes sense! > >=20 > > > > > Donald Livengood an HP consultant gave a 2 hour presentation on=20 > > > > > the subject in fast talkin redneck at a Compaq Exchange=20 > > Academy I=20 > > > > > attended. I think he might have given a similar presentation at=20 > > > > > MEC last year or the year before.. Might check Microsoft's > > > > website for the > > > > > slide deck. > > > > >=20 > >=20 > > >>I will try to see if I can find his narrative as well to add to the=20 > > >>ppt > > file > > >>Gary kindly sent. > >=20 > > >=20 > > > How big are the pipes and servers. I've seen a lot of E2K designs=20 > > > where it was clear the architects were stuck in 5.5 ways of=20 > > thinking.=20 > > > I'm not saying that is the case for you, but there's always that=20 > > > possibility. > > >=20 > >=20 > > >> The pipes are a decent size (128kb +). I think I can see where you=20 > > >> are > > going >> (i.e. intersite connectivity is via smtp so less=20 > > bandwidth hungry and more > > >> resillient, right? > > >> One of the reasons I think the routing groups were put in was to > > control > > >> public folder access (local client access local copy of folder). > >=20 > > > In answer to the bigger question I think.. You can add more=20 > > > bridgeheads with higher routing costs to provide redundancy=20 > > in message=20 > > > routing while still maintaining primary message traffic routes for=20 > > > normal circumstances. > > >=20 > >=20 > > >>It appears clear that the mailbox servers should have rg connectors=20 > > >>set > > with >>higher costs. > >=20 > > > [1] Think, don't have time to verify at the moment, but=20 > > either way I=20 > > > don't think it matters to the answer. > >=20 > > >>I agree. > >=20 > > >>To everyone who has submitted in this thread. THANKS > > >>This sort of information is either very well hidden in some text > > somewhere or >>is just not available. Even with a test lab=20 > > this is difficult to emulate and >>I am always in=20 > > appreciation of the experience/knowledge sharing that goes on >>here. > >=20 > > >>I will keep you all posted on my progress. > > Regards > > Leo > >=20 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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] > >=20 _________________________________________________________________ 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]
