Hi Rick, What I meant was one forest each for the comapnies. In each forest, one domain and explicit trsust between the forests.
Consolidating everything into one domain is cool too, but there are more pressing issues like boundary administration and ownership issues. In short, the technology is cool but human emotions may run high. Cheers, ERIC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick Kingslan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] It's A Question Of Trust... > Eric, > > Tell me I'm reading this wrong - two different forests - one for each > company - each forest with two domains? Or, is this a new forest with > two trees (tree root domains)? > > Thanks! > > Rick Kingslan - Microsoft MVP [Windows NT/2000] > Microsoft Certified Trainer > MCSA, MCSE+I - Windows NT / 2000 > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology > is indistinguishable from magic." > --- Arthur C. Clarke > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Eric Yeoh > > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:20 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] It's A Question Of Trust... > > > > > > Go with 2 domains in different Forest with 2-way transitive > > trusts, easier and lesser hassles! > > > > ERIC > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Blair, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 8:27 PM > > Subject: [ActiveDir] It's A Question Of Trust... > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Need a bit of advise here...Our sister company has decided to > > > eventually migrate to W2K and in their design > > considerations they have > > > put forward a proposal to create a new domain and have us integrate > > > into it with them to "centralise" things and therefore make things > > > easier to manage etc. Do you think that this is the right > > way to go or > > > would it be better to stick with having two domains and a > > transitive > > > trust etc. Our core business is not > > the > > > same and our network architecture is certainly a lot different to > > > theirs. They are used to high speed WAN's and have predominantly > > > "office workers" with the OS, Office Suite, IE 6 etc > > installed. We on > > > the other hand have a lot of places linked by various methods of > > > phone: Satellite, Mobile etc. > > in > > > very remote locations dialling into central points. We also > > have a WAN > > > however our backbone is of inferior speed, still pretty > > good however, > > theirs > > > a bit OTT. Over and above the standard installations we have a large > > amount > > > of software packages to support due to the nature of > > business. There > > > is a lot of theorising going on about the best way to go > > and I would > > > like a > > real > > > world answer. We are fully W2K in mixed mode and have been for more > > > than a year now with no hassles... > > > > > > James > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
