--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:gilk@;netpro.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:11 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>
om: Tucker, Mark [mailto:MTucker@;aelita.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
>
>
> Gil, you are correct. I think Roger is confusing not having
> a the client's subnet defined in AD with auto-site c
r. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:gilk@;netpro.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:11 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
>
nt: Tue 10/29/2002 1:10 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
But NETLOGON does create SRV recs to cover DC-less sites if
there are sites
and subnets defined, which is what the ori
Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:19 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
Site coverage works exactly as Stuart Kwan explained - without manual
intervention of the RR records, the actual logins are processed fai
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:gilk@;netpro.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subjec
inovis.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:43 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
> If you decide to create an empty site (no DCs)for you subnets, the
> autosite coverage algorithm will ensure that clients in that site are
> authenticat
l Message-
> From: Tucker, Mark [mailto:MTucker@;aelita.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
>
>
> I would agree that you want to register the subnets in Sites and
> Services.
>
> If a
walk of a
randomly arranged list.
-Original Message-
From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday,
October 24, 2002 5:50 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites
with no DC
I haven't tested it
myself, but I doubt very muc
ary.
-gil
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
> Oh, and this all does assume that YOUR network engineers TELL you when
> they pu
f the quickest.
-Original Message-From: Garello, Kenneth
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002
2:07 PMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
How much overhead
does leaving it up to the locator incur?
Ken
Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
> Oh, and this all does assume that YOUR network engineers TELL you when
> they put in a whole
ginal Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:59 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
>From experience, I wouldn't trust the locator to get 'close' very
>often.
Du
closest site
based on cost will register site-specific SRV records for the empty
site.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:39 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
ner
> MCSA, MCSE+I - Windows NT / 2000
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology
> is indistinguishable from magic."
> --- Arthur C. Clarke
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@;mail.activedir.o
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@;mail.activedir.org] On Behalf Of
> Roger Seielstad
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:59 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites with no DC
>
>
> >From experience, I wouldn't trus
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Garello, Kenneth [mailto:KGarello@;worcester.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:07 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subje
You need to create a subnet, but not a discrete site.
We tend to run a hub and spoke WAN layout - a small number of larger
offices, each with a full infrastructure, all interconnected. The smaller
offices are spoked off one of the larger offices. In the case of small
offices without domain control
Title: Message
How much overhead does leaving it up to
the locator incur?
Ken
-Original Message-
From: Gil Kirkpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002
4:37 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Sites
with no DC
Title: Message
Hey
Don,
Is
this your first post to the list? If so, welcome.
To
answer your question, no you don't have to create a site for each subnet. You
can associate multiple subnets with a single site. Or you can leave the
subnets unassigned, and the DC locator will do its best t
20 matches
Mail list logo