Remote Locations

Hello, here is my current setup.

1 server (SBS 2003) in Arkansas
DC
DNS
Web
Email (Exchange)

Everything works fine inside the LAN and I am able to access my web site on
the public side, along with VPN to the server if I need to get ahold of
files or work within the LAN from a remote location. This is my upcoming
situation. I will be residing in California for a while and I want to setup
another LAN in California. Now, I know I can setup another server and just
use VPN routers to keep them connected, or Window Server 2003's built in VPN
software. I am fully aware that my next DC will have to be Windows Server
2003 because of the limitations in SBS. Several mailboxes on the server are
quite big and sometimes receive big email attachments. My upload speed is
limited in Arkansas, but much better in California. Is it possible to setup
another DC in California with Exchange that will host the huge mailboxes
(being used by people in CA)? Also, I don't want any internet traffic
besides replication and exchange going through the WAN link to Arkansas. I
want that traffic going through the WAN link in CA so that it goes much
faster. Anyone know how or can point me in the right direction on setting
this up? Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Robert
(E-Mail Removed)

Yes, join a new Exchange server in the CA site to the Organization and move
the large mailboxes to the new server by using the Move Mailbox wizard
(available to you if you install the Exchange System Manager tool).

--
Todd J Heron, MCSE
Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA

"Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello, here is my current setup.
>
> 1 server (SBS 2003) in Arkansas
> DC
> DNS
> Web
> Email (Exchange)
>
> Everything works fine inside the LAN and I am able to access my web site
> on
> the public side, along with VPN to the server if I need to get ahold of
> files or work within the LAN from a remote location. This is my upcoming
> situation. I will be residing in California for a while and I want to
> setup
> another LAN in California. Now, I know I can setup another server and
> just
> use VPN routers to keep them connected, or Window Server 2003's built in
> VPN
> software. I am fully aware that my next DC will have to be Windows Server
> 2003 because of the limitations in SBS. Several mailboxes on the server
> are
> quite big and sometimes receive big email attachments. My upload speed is
> limited in Arkansas, but much better in California. Is it possible to
> setup
> another DC in California with Exchange that will host the huge mailboxes
> (being used by people in CA)? Also, I don't want any internet traffic
> besides replication and exchange going through the WAN link to Arkansas.
> I
> want that traffic going through the WAN link in CA so that it goes much
> faster. Anyone know how or can point me in the right direction on setting
> this up? Any help appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Robert
> (E-Mail Removed)
>
>
>

OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part? Should
I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work properly? Also, I
don't want the regular internet traffic going through the VPN, instead
through the existing WAN connection in CA.

Robert

"Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Yes, join a new Exchange server in the CA site to the Organization and
> move the large mailboxes to the new server by using the Move Mailbox
> wizard (available to you if you install the Exchange System Manager tool).
>
> --
> Todd J Heron, MCSE
> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
>
> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hello, here is my current setup.
>>
>> 1 server (SBS 2003) in Arkansas
>> DC
>> DNS
>> Web
>> Email (Exchange)
>>
>> Everything works fine inside the LAN and I am able to access my web site
>> on
>> the public side, along with VPN to the server if I need to get ahold of
>> files or work within the LAN from a remote location. This is my upcoming
>> situation. I will be residing in California for a while and I want to
>> setup
>> another LAN in California. Now, I know I can setup another server and
>> just
>> use VPN routers to keep them connected, or Window Server 2003's built in
>> VPN
>> software. I am fully aware that my next DC will have to be Windows
>> Server
>> 2003 because of the limitations in SBS. Several mailboxes on the server
>> are
>> quite big and sometimes receive big email attachments. My upload speed
>> is
>> limited in Arkansas, but much better in California. Is it possible to
>> setup
>> another DC in California with Exchange that will host the huge mailboxes
>> (being used by people in CA)? Also, I don't want any internet traffic
>> besides replication and exchange going through the WAN link to Arkansas.
>> I
>> want that traffic going through the WAN link in CA so that it goes much
>> faster. Anyone know how or can point me in the right direction on
>> setting
>> this up? Any help appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>> Robert
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>>
>>
>

"Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work properly?
> Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going through the VPN,
> instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.

You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the big
mailbox users to use OWA!

--
Todd J Heron, MCSE
Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA

No, the whole point is for domain authentication without traveling over the
WAN and using the DC in Arkansas. Also, helping a lot for the users with
big mailboxes to have them stored in the same building, instead of two
states away! A site-to-site vpn would allow me to only direct the neccesary
traffic across the VPN?

Robert

"Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
>> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work
>> properly? Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going through
>> the VPN, instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.
>
> You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the big
> mailbox users to use OWA!
>
> --
> Todd J Heron, MCSE
> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA

> No, the whole point is for domain authentication without traveling over
> the
> WAN and using the DC in Arkansas. Also, helping a lot for the users with
> big mailboxes to have them stored in the same building, instead of two
> states away! A site-to-site vpn would allow me to only direct the
> neccesary traffic across the VPN?

yes.

>
> Robert
>
> "Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>>> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
>>> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work
>>> properly? Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going through
>>> the VPN, instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.
>>
>> You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the big
>> mailbox users to use OWA!
>>
>> --
>> Todd J Heron, MCSE
>> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
>
>

OK. Any recommendations on site-to-site vpn hardware? Brand, make?

Robert

"Oliver O'Boyle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> No, the whole point is for domain authentication without traveling over
>> the
>> WAN and using the DC in Arkansas. Also, helping a lot for the users with
>> big mailboxes to have them stored in the same building, instead of two
>> states away! A site-to-site vpn would allow me to only direct the
>> neccesary traffic across the VPN?
>
> yes.
>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> "Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>>>> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
>>>> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work
>>>> properly? Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going through
>>>> the VPN, instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.
>>>
>>> You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the
>>> big mailbox users to use OWA!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Todd J Heron, MCSE
>>> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
>>
>>
>
>

> OK. Any recommendations on site-to-site vpn hardware? Brand, make?

depending on your setup and budget, Microsoft ISA server is a good and
secure way to implement such a thing. It uses the built-in features of RRAS
for VPN tunneling, but adds security and a tone of other things to your
arsenal.

Take a look, but it might be too expensive for what you are looking.

Oliver

>
> Robert
>
> "Oliver O'Boyle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> No, the whole point is for domain authentication without traveling over
>>> the
>>> WAN and using the DC in Arkansas. Also, helping a lot for the users
>>> with big mailboxes to have them stored in the same building, instead of
>>> two states away! A site-to-site vpn would allow me to only direct the
>>> neccesary traffic across the VPN?
>>
>> yes.
>>
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> "Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>>>>> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
>>>>> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work
>>>>> properly? Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going
>>>>> through the VPN, instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.
>>>>
>>>> You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the
>>>> big mailbox users to use OWA!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Todd J Heron, MCSE
>>>> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Ahh, I see. I haven't messed with ISA very much because I've got a hardware
and software firewall that takes care of my security and never sought to use
it, but I'll give it a whirl. Thanks!

Robert

"Oliver O'Boyle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> OK. Any recommendations on site-to-site vpn hardware? Brand, make?
>
> depending on your setup and budget, Microsoft ISA server is a good and
> secure way to implement such a thing. It uses the built-in features of
> RRAS for VPN tunneling, but adds security and a tone of other things to
> your arsenal.
>
> Take a look, but it might be too expensive for what you are looking.
>
> Oliver
>
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> "Oliver O'Boyle" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>
>>>> No, the whole point is for domain authentication without traveling over
>>>> the
>>>> WAN and using the DC in Arkansas. Also, helping a lot for the users
>>>> with big mailboxes to have them stored in the same building, instead of
>>>> two states away! A site-to-site vpn would allow me to only direct the
>>>> neccesary traffic across the VPN?
>>>
>>> yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> "Todd J Heron" <todd_heron(delete)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> "Robert Craig" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message...
>>>>>> OK. I will do that, but how would I solve the communications part?
>>>>>> Should I have a VPN to Arkansas so replication and exchange work
>>>>>> properly? Also, I don't want the regular internet traffic going
>>>>>> through the VPN, instead through the existing WAN connection in CA.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need site-to-site VPN. Or you could do nothing and just tell the
>>>>> big mailbox users to use OWA!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Todd J Heron, MCSE
>>>>> Windows Server 2003/2000/NT; CCA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>