Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject:
Outsourcing and Resource Forests |
|
|
My company is planning on moving to Exchange 2003 from a unix mail
system. Due to an overloaded server room there is some pressure to
consider outsourcing the hosting and management of Exchange. We're
talking about a largish system (4000 users) so this is not just a case
of outsourcing a few mailboxes. The selected supplier would have to
host a whole infrastructure, complete with AD, just for us.
| Quote: | From what I've read I believe this will lead us to a "resource forest"
model. What are the implication of this? The MS whitepaper I read |
seemed to say that a resource forest model would achieve all the
things that a single forest model could, but I did find a KB article
which seemed to indicate that giving a user access to multiple
mailboxes is much more complicated. Are there other gotchas that might
catch us out if we go the outsourced resource forest? What about
operability with all the myriad "Exchange compatable" applications out
there? How likely are we to run into "yes we said it worked with
Exchange, but only if it's running in a SINGLE FOREST".
Also am I right in assuming that all management of distribution lists
would be done in the onsite (user) forest?
TIA,
Carol
|
|
Brian Desmond [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun May 22, 2005 1:17 am Post subject:
Re: Outsourcing and Resource Forests |
|
|
Carol-
I really don't think a 4000 user environment is going to put that much
pressure on your datacenter floorspace. 4000 mailboxes doesn't take *that*
much hardware.
Anyway, to answer your question, what you would do here is setup a forest
with the Exchange servers installed. You would create an outgoing trust in
this resource forest - that is, your resource forest trusts your corp
forest. Your resource forest would then have aduplicate account for each
user with a mailbox, but disabled. Finally, the dacl for the mailbox has the
corp account on there with full mailbox access and associated external
account rights.
--
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
Windows Server MVP
www.briandesmond.com
<cwapshere@london.edu> wrote in message
news:1113911012.167051.170990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | My company is planning on moving to Exchange 2003 from a unix mail
system. Due to an overloaded server room there is some pressure to
consider outsourcing the hosting and management of Exchange. We're
talking about a largish system (4000 users) so this is not just a case
of outsourcing a few mailboxes. The selected supplier would have to
host a whole infrastructure, complete with AD, just for us.
From what I've read I believe this will lead us to a "resource forest"
model. What are the implication of this? The MS whitepaper I read
seemed to say that a resource forest model would achieve all the
things that a single forest model could, but I did find a KB article
which seemed to indicate that giving a user access to multiple
mailboxes is much more complicated. Are there other gotchas that might
catch us out if we go the outsourced resource forest? What about
operability with all the myriad "Exchange compatable" applications out
there? How likely are we to run into "yes we said it worked with
Exchange, but only if it's running in a SINGLE FOREST".
Also am I right in assuming that all management of distribution lists
would be done in the onsite (user) forest?
TIA,
Carol
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in