"DB" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7DBDAB4C-E358-4913-A4DF-(E-Mail Removed)...
Use one Domain with a DC at each site and create separate "Site" in AD to
correspond with that. It will be "Site boundaries" that separate the sites,
not Domain boundaries.
> One book I read said not to install Exchange on a Domain Controller, but
isn't that the
> approach SBS Server 2003 takes?
SBS is "unique" and should not be looked at as a "model" for how to do
things in other situations. SBS is not suitable for large environments.
> I have never installed SBS Server. will it allow me to install Exchange
separate from
> the DC? If not, should I change my plan to:
No. Everything is forced to be on the same box. Stay away from SBS in your
situation.
> I see that most routers today come with DHCP and VPN capability.
They are not "real routers", they're just NAT boxes with a stripped down
DHCP Service and a LAN Switch built into the same case, but anyway....
> Do I need to turn both of these services off on the router/NAT device and
manage it through Windows when building a WAN?
No, and they aren't effecting the WAN, they are only effecting the sit they
are in. You would want to use the these device's NAT and VPN and maybe the
DHCP unless the Server handles DHCP. Use the device at the "edge" of the
network and let your Server be single-homed and let it only worry about
keeping the LAN happey and not about dealing with the Internet.
Now you could put the Server into this role with two NICs and eliminate the
DSL Router in favor of a "DSL Modem" which has no address and is just a
glorified "media converter". But why complicate things?,...keep it simple.
Either way your do not want to do both at the same time because you then
complicated the system by creating a Back-to-Back DMZ and now have that to
deal with.
> And finally, what type of network connection will allow the users at each
site to always > be connected? Should I enquire about a T1, Frame Relay, or
can I accomplish this with
> DSL?
T1 or FR is the best choice. Note that T1 only referres to speed, not the
type of connection. A T1 can *be* a Frame Relay, it can also be an ISDN
line.
DSL is the worse possible choice.
> If I use DSL, will I have to set up site-to-site VPN connections to the
main office?
Yes.
> but I don't want latency problems either.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. DSL/Internet is the worse performer of
the bunch and always will be. You'll have to make a choice.
Note also that whatever is used for the VPN must be directly accessable to
the users, or at least to a Router (a real router) used by the users. Do not
create a DMZ between it and the users and I recommend also that you do not
create a DMZ between the device and the Internet as well,...in other words
no DMZ at the sites. The VPN device is most dependable with a "direct shot"
on both sides of it.
Keep in mind that the number of machines isn't what justifies a T1, what
justifies a T1 is how much money do those few machine make for the company.
If you have only one 486SX machine running DOS at that office and that
machine helped bring in $250,000 a year for the company then a T1 is
justified.
Your best performer is a private link using a T1 or partial (256k ?) T1.
This would be a private link that would have no bearing on the Internet in
any way. But that isn't the "popular thought" today. Today everyone has
jumped head first into the Internet/DSL/VPN "bandwagon" because it has been
so heavily marketed, but the fact is that it is not a very good performer.
--
Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
