Good luck with that. Internet access in both countries is heavily regulated, with no significant alternatives to the main providers.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Malcolm Reitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ignoring the Citrix question, if I had three day link outages to places > like the UK and Australia, I'd be looking for another circuit provider. > > Malcolm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 07 July, 2008 12:30 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Remote Location AD Question > > High cost, and doesn't take care of link outages, which we've suffered > for as much as 3 days at a time. We have engineering development staff > in these offices as well. > > Kurt > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:22 AM, David Mazzaccaro > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Citrix >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:28 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Remote Location AD Question >> >> You must not have any overseas or other high-latency links to your >> offices. >> >> One example will demonstrate what I mean: >> >> Using Windows Explorer to browse the US file server from either our AU >> (40 people) or UK (20 people) offices, there are some directories - >> fairly large one, but under 1k files in the directory - that take as >> much as 30 minutes to paint the screen. >> >> Yes, we could mitigate some of that with a Riverbed or other caching >> appliance, but those cost money too. We've chosen to mitigate it with >> a Win2k TS server - we're hesitant about going to Win2k3 because of >> cost for the CALs. I'll probably use our new SonicWal SSL VPN >> appliance to mitigate some of this, by exporting shares over a web >> interface - that should be much quicker to browse. >> >> Requiring all browsing to go through the US office would be insane, >> and siting a DC/GC in each office is pretty much required, along with >> an Exchange and file server. >> >> Kurt >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:53 AM, David Mazzaccaro >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Everything goes over the wire, including internet access. There are >> no >>> servers at the remote locations. >>> >>> As for IP addresses: >>> Office1 = 192.168.50.0/24 >>> Office2 = 192.168.51.0/24 >>> Office3 = 192.168.53.0/24 >>> Etc. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Joe Heaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:46 AM >>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>> Subject: RE: Remote Location AD Question >>> >>> What do you guys use for IP assignment? We have 3 remote offices, >> each >>> with less than 15 users, that I'd love to get to a point of not > having >> a >>> DC there. Do you have member server in place for files, etc? Or do >> you >>> have everything going over the wire to your central site? >>> >>> >>> Joe Heaton >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Steven Peck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:32 AM >>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>> Subject: Re: Remote Location AD Question >>> >>> You definitely want those workstations joined to the domain. GPO for >>> management, Anti-virus updates, patch management, reporting/inventory >> of >>> the systems, remoting in for troubleshooting etc. Logon traffic for >> 50 >>> workstations across a t1 is negligible as long as latency is low. >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:14 AM, David Mazzaccaro >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> We don't use RDP, but rather ICA (Citrix) and it works great - all >>>> their apps are available. >>>> As for locking down - we use GPOs rather than locking them down >>>> individually. >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: N Parr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:53 AM >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Remote Location AD Question >>>> >>>> Thanks, I guess I won't worry about it for now. It's just a > shipping >>>> warehouse at the moment and I'll be ok as long as they don't decide >> to >>> >>>> put office staff at the location. >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 8:37 AM >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: Remote Location AD Question >>>> >>>> I have a remote location w/ 30 workstations and IP phones, no remote >>>> DC, connected over a MPLS VPN T1 circuit. >>>> >>>> Works great! Less filling! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> From: N Parr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:23 AM >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> Subject: Remote Location AD Question >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How many member workstations would you put at a remote location >>>> connected with a Site to Site VPN over a T-1 without a local DC? >> Only >>> >>>> other traffic on the line will be an IP phone, random print jobs and >>>> RDP sessions from remote workstations. What I'm thinking is since >>>> these remote workstations will run everything over their RDP > sessions >>>> I shouldn't even bother making them domain members. Just lock them >>> down and only allow them access to RDP. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Niles >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ >>> ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ >>> >>> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ >>> ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ >>> >>> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ >>> ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ >>> >> >> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ >> >> ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ >> > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and > privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information > for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > delete all copies of this message. > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
