That's actually two sides of a single bidirectional RGC. It was created by the installation process and IF you provided accurate info during the installation process (i.e., you identified the proper legacy bridgehead and the proper new bridgehead) it should be fine.
Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11:01 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues Thanks for the info. I'll have to take some time to digest your points. One thing that jumps out though is your comment that there should only be one Routing Group Connector. On the Exchange 2003 server, there are actually two RGCs, one called EXCH2003-EXCH2010 in the First Admin Group, and another called EXCH2010-EX2003 in the newly created Exchange Admin Group. These have not been modified, in fact ESM doesn't let you, complaining about version issues. Are these the RGs that you're referring to? I assumed they are both needed since they were created as part of the install process. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-05-10 11:25 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues I would need to see email headers, and/or smtp logs, to determine how email is actually currently flowing. It sounds to me as if either the RGC is incorrectly configured or you have the send-connector on the 2010 side misconfigured. Actual attempted email flow (message headers or smtp logs) from the 2003 -> 2010 and vice versa would identify the guilty party. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:27 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues Ok, I read your Windows IT Pro article, which was very good. Unfortunately it didn't help and I'm officially *very* frustrated now. After fiddling with send/receive connectors for last couple of days, I still haven't gotten mail to flow within our new Exchange 2003/2010 organization properly. My ultimate goal is to have mail arrive on Exchange 2010 and if necessary route mail to Exchange 2003 for mailboxes that are still on the 2003 server. At this point no mail boxes have been moved, although I've created a couple of test 2010 accounts. I can send mail from 2003 users to 2010 mailboxes, and I can send mail externally directly to 2003 mailboxes or 2010 mailboxes. Unfortunately I cannot get mail working from 2010 mailboxes to 2003 mailboxes, or externally through the 2010 server to 2003 mailboxes. This issue is also causing Public Folder Replication problems. After the 2010 install, two routing group connectors were created (Exch2003-Exch2010 in the First Administrative Group side, and Exch2010-Exch2003 in the newly created Exchange Admin Group). I haven't modified those in any way. I also had an existing SMTP Connector with a Unix smart host specified. The SMTP address space is * and applies to the entire organization. This SMTP connector also appears on the 2010 server as a Send Connector. Finally, there is an SMTP Virtual Server under the SMTP protocol section of the First Admin Group, with no smart host specified. After the installation, I created scoped Send Connector for SMTP/*, specifying our Unix smart host and the 2010 server as the source server. Under Accepted Domains, I added acadiau.ca as an Internal Relay. There is also another SMTP Virtual Host in the Exchange Admin Group. I actually had this all working in my ESXi test environment but due to some disk issues I lost my VMs. I thought I remembered how I had configured things but obviously I don't have a very good memory. I've gotten totally confused about what send connectors, SMTP virtual hosts, smart hosts, accepted domains, etc, etc, that I need. I think I've tried every obvious configuration. I know it should be simple, but it seems to have beaten me. What am I missing? From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-03-10 2:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues Mail delivery seems to be working properly now, so I think I've got the various connectors configured properly. The 2003 server does not have a certificate and I haven't installed a UC cert on 2010 yet. I'm reading everything I can find on the topic before tackling the certificate install. After the way things went today I doubt that things will go problem free... From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-03-10 2:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues How have you configured namespace sharing, i.e., namespaces vs. SSL certificates on the two servers? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:07 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues That might be it. I had sort of wanted to keep Exchange 2010 out of the picture after this first phase since all the mail boxes are still on Exchange 2003. I want to get backups, certificates, and other misc stuff working on Exchange 2010 before moving mailboxes. One weird problem that has surfaced since the 2010 install is a problem with Public folders. When I try to look at the folder in System Manager on Exch2003, I get the error "The HTTP service used by Public Folders is not available, possible causes are that Public stores are not mounted and the Information Store service is not running." I'm getting lots of google hits for this error but none specifically relating to an Exchange 2010 upgrade. The folders show up fine in Outlook, but not in OWA or System Manager. This issue did not come up in our test lab. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-03-10 1:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues That would tend to indicate that the mail is being routed through the Exchange 2003 server and you don't have a properly scoped send-connector on the 2010 side. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:47 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues Yes, I had already done that. I'm a bit confused now though. I stopped/started the SMTP virtual host (on the EXCH2003 side), and that seemed to solve the problem. Things seem to be working so I guess whatever was broken/stuck is ok. At least it's working... From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-03-10 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues Did you create a send-connector to forward the scoped domain to the Unix host? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Paul Steele [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2003 to 2010 issues We did as much testing as we could in our test lab, so we moved ahead and installed our production Exchange 2010 server. The installation went fine without any errors, but we're have delivery problems. We've been preparing for a transition from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We've done various test installs in our lab and thought we had everything figured out. Unfortunately we're having mail delivery problems after completing the install. The actual installation went without problems. We have a shared address space, with some users on our Exchange server and some on a Unix host. The biggest issue we're having is sending to users who are not on our Exchange server. We've set the Accepted Domains for "acadiau.ca" to Internal Relay, but when we try to send to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> that does not exist in the Exchange name space, the message bounces (it never makes it to our Unix smart host). We've compared things with our test servers and everything looks correct. At this point we've very confused what we're doing wrong. If anyone has a suggestion what to look for we really appreciate it.
