in there :)
-Original Message-
From: Andy Schan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
IPSec is another option I'm considering, but I'd like to think the SMTP link
approach would be more
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier, Guido
Sent: 31 March, 2004 22:23
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
seems like you're aware of the potential issues of using a domain in
your forest, instead of a separate forest. rgd. the SMPT site links:
I've
Good thoughts- thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al
Sent: 1 April, 2004 08:53
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
I mention the IPSec method as a way to make it easy to get all
Are you sure that the separate domain will meet the organization's
requirements? Remember, the forest is the security boundary, not the
domains.
Hunter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm aware of that; that's still to be decided on, and I'm still gathering all
the requirements. Meanwhile, I'm looking into whether this is technically
feasible.
Thanks,
Andy
Are you sure that the separate domain will meet the organization's
requirements? Remember, the forest is the
Hi Andy,
Check out the following:
* Active Directory in Networks Segmented by Firewalls -
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=c2ef3846-43f0-4caf-
9767-a9166368434eDisplayLang=en
* Restricting Active Directory Replication Traffic to a Specific Port
(MS-KBQ224196) -
I've been reading these paper, but most of them assume resource sharing /or
cross-domain authentications happening; the scenario I'm looking at (security
boundaries/requirements being looked at separately) is simply having
replication between the domains (and mail flow, but that's a separate
Return Receipt
Your RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
document
: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
I've been reading these paper, but most of them assume resource sharing /or
cross-domain authentications happening; the scenario I'm looking at
(security boundaries/requirements being looked
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al
Sent: 31 March, 2004 16:30
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
Andy, a domain separated by a firewall in the same forest is feasible and it
sounds like you're
better with Windows 2003 servers.
Al
-Original Message-
From: Andy Schan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
Thanks, I'll be looking at it from that side as well. I was originally
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mulnick, Al
Sent: 31 March, 2004 17:28
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
If that doesn't work, you may want to consider IPSec tunnels if the firewall
can support. Simplifies the config and secures the transport
straight forward.
~Eric
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Grillenmeier,
Guido
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Domains Separated by Firewall
seems like you're aware of the potential
13 matches
Mail list logo
