Brian,
We implemented an empty root design (we now have 6 other
domains) but we planned this from the start knowing that our company will do
acquisition and divestiture - leaving us in a position to easily move domains
off of the structure. Our forest is very stable, very healthy, and it
works well for us. Two additional domain controllers for the Root Domain -
which left us with a solid base for the other child domains - was the total
cost. Reasonable from a management perspective, knowing that we will add
and remove domains.
And, I do have a forest in our extranet. Plus, we are
looking into MIIS (or, MMS 3.0 for us who have been working with the product for
more than a month....) to assist with SSO and to manage accounts in a push
manner to our extranet forest. In addition, ADAM is beginning to play a
part as some of the Applications that we use can use an LDAP service for
Authentication / Authorization.
Bottomline - it's all a matter of choice. You can
make all kinds of decisions, but the best thing to do is not make one.
I've seen more projects die because of analysis paralysis than any other single
cause. Many times implementing a not perfectly 'optimal'
implementation (but very workable and viable) is better than waiting until
you have the best solution, only to find that the window was missed or
confidence is in question.
Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rogers, Brian Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:32 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers I got used to being shocked and surprised at what happens here long ago J
All I can do is try to make it better any way I can. Sadly without some serious firepower with an MS stamp of approval on it...it's an uphill battle.
I can find a bazillion docs however that suggest people migrate their NT domains using the Empty root strategy...makes one wonder at times.
-----Original
Message-----
Brian,
A few hours of sleep to think further about this - you ask for case studies. I would have to believe, and am certain of at least one - that SANS Institute is going to be able to provide this for you off of their site. We have a subscription and I can't say at the moment if this is pay or free (suspect pay - it usually is when you really need it...) but I just can't imagine what would posses someone to believe that what they are proposing is even remotely acceptable in any environment in today's computing world.
Rick
Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rogers,
Brian Have the exact same situation here.
We currently have a separate NT domain (for a security boundary) for our INET machines. These machines exist on a DMZ...and run public internet sites that connect to a SQL backend inside our network. An ISA server provides the firewall and proxy services.
Im currently having a fight with the operations staff on design. They want to do the Empty Root/two subdomain model (because they read a lot of useless MOC Courseware books).
I can personally see very little benefit to consolidating these two separate domains into one forest. They see no logic in having a separate forest/separate domain for the Internet systems.
Nothing short of a case study will sway them I believe....any decent documents comparing the two? Or frankly..any documents that recommend a separate forest for your internet systems as a security boundary?
-----Original
Message-----
I have a question... (Assuming that the Servers in the DMZ are already away from the in-house domain)
If before the upgrade none of the servers needed AD or access to your in-house domain, why would you want them to have it after the upgrade?
J Just thinking semi-logically...
Thanks,
Raymond McClinnis Network Administrator Provident Credit Union
-----Original
Message-----
It would help if you determined what was going to be public access (via DMZ or otherwise) and determine the needs of the applications there.
The other option we've been talking about is AD Application Mode (ADAM) from Microsoft.
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
Title: Message
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Roger Seielstad
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Roger Seielstad
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Roger Seielstad
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Roger Seielstad
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers John McGlinchey
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rick Kingslan
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Rogers, Brian
- RE: [ActiveDir] what to do with DMZ servers Roger Seielstad