Putting all 65 Sites in a single Site Link was my initial plan - but when we had MS in for a "sign-off" on our AD design they suggested we make 4 Site Links - for replication management and efficiency (as our WAN links are not the most reliable).
OK - Thanks. I will definitely give the Routing Group connector a shot. Any gotchas to watch out for when setting up Routing Group connectors? They seem straight forward. So you wouldn't see a problem with each of our 65 offices having 65 connectors - 1 to each and every office? It sure seems like the way to go, especially with or WAN - but wasn't sure how Exchange 2000 would react to having 4000+ connectors in the routing table.... Thanks again. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Routing > > > If you have a true cloud and no backup links, then I would > think that you'd > make one site link for all the sites connected to the cloud. > > As to Exchange routing group connectors, I would set up > standard routing > group connectors (not SMTP Connectors) between the sites according to > predominant mail flow. There's no reason you couldn't set up > a full mesh, > either. In fact, I'm not so sure you really need separate > routing groups at > all given your WAN bandwidth, however, what really matters is > available > capacity, not raw capacity. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Miller, Robert > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:00 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Routing > > Each office/location is in it's own Site. I have 4 Site Links > (1 for all the > North and South America offices - 1 for the European offices, > 1 for the Asia > Pac offices, and then 1 that ties the other 3 together). The Site Link > bridgeheads are the servers in the 3 Hubs. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:32 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Routing > > > > > > How are your AD sites configured? > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Miller, > > Robert > > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:09 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Exchange 2000 Routing > > > > All, > > > > We have a fully meshed network (IP Cloud) connecting 65 > offices around > > the world. We are currently in the process of moving from > 5.5 to 2000. > > We have 3 main HUB sites (Chicago, London, Hong Kong). The > hubs have > > the biggest pipes into the cloud (Chicago - 4MB, London > 2MB, Hong Kong > > 2MB). > > All other offices > > range from 65K to 512K. Looking for ideas on how to setup the SMTP > > connectors between the routing groups (each office, > including the hubs > > - are in their own routing group. 2 ideas so far 1. 3 Hubs > meshed with > > SMTP connectors - each remote office with 3 SMTP connectors - 1 > > connector with the lowest cost going to Chicago, and then > the other 2 > > connectors with a higher cost to London and Hong Kong (this would > > force all traffic through Chicago which has the biggest > pipe and have > > London and Hong Kong for redundant paths. > > 2. 3 Hubs meshed with SMTP connectors - each remote office > with 3 SMTP > > connectors - 1 connector with the lowest cost going to its > respective > > hub site (example - Dallas office to Chicago, Paris to London)... > > and then 2 > > connectors with a higher cost to London and Hong Kong. > > > > Our WAN team wants us to create a routing topology so that > any office > > can send email directly to any other office - this would > require over > > 4000 connectors. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > TIA, > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
