RE: [ActiveDir] Site link costs

[Bernard, Aric]

Title: Site link costs

While I know absolutely nothing about your environment aside from what you mention below, but I would have to make an assumption that if your AD site topology were configured properly you could have accomplished what you want without “deactivat[ing] the ability for AD to create its own links”.  Your approach is certainly not a best practice for most environments.    Further more; it is important to differentiate between sites, site links and connection objects.  In every forest, sites and associated site links must be implemented manually/programmatically [1] as the KCC/ISTG only handles the creation of connection objects between DCs based on the site topology explicitly defined in the AD.  If you were seeing connection object being created automatically between servers that you “disapproved” of then an error existed in the site topology you defined.  Keep in mind that your site topology consists of many things including sites, site links, site link bridges, costs, schedules, preferred bridgehead servers (optionally), and more.   [1] The exception to this is the DefaultFirstSite and DefaultSiteLink.   Regards,   Aric   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carerros, Charles Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:36 AM To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Site link costs   Great question, we just had this at our place.  We just finished deploying a W2K3 AD structure across the globule with each division using their own sub domain.    We are creating our site links manually.  And by saying "We" I mean one of the five Enterprise admins across the globe.  We have deactivated the ability for AD to create its own links so we don't have to worry about oddities.   The reason for this is so we can control how often and WITH WHO each site replicates.  Right now we have the site that hosts the first DC for each domain replicating back to sites with root domain controllers but all other domain sites only replicate with each other and their first DC.  This means that if the link between our root domain controllers and that primary domain controller site was to go away we wouldn't have replication with them.    The links that were being created by AD weren't what we wanted.  We had sites in Italy replicating with New Jersey and sites in Mexico replication with Ireland.  I think this had something to do with our routing tables, firewall placements and frame relay clouds that we are using across the globe.   So, I guess it all depends on your topology that you have.   Charlie   -----Original Message----- From: O'Brien, Cathy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:06 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] Site link costs Sorry for the basic question... Our company just upgraded our NT4 domains in-place as child W2K3 domains under an empty W2K3 forest root domain. 22 sites and their associated subnets were established, with one subsidiary leaving all their objects in the default first site because they feel their bandwidth will support it. However, we're currently having heated discussions regarding AD and site topology. Some IT members are saying that there is no need to manually create site links or assign properties such as cost and replication interval. They say that if we don't do this, then AD does it automatically and it will do a better job than we would anyway. I  thought that the KCC needed the site topology info to be provided (whether manually or programmatically) so that it could automatically create the connection objects (provided you're not manually creating them). So who is confused here, me or them? This should be basic stuff, and I want to understand it correctly :-). TIA, Cathy