We have just added a new Site to our existing AD.

Site1 - 10.6.x.x - Existing
Site2 - 192.168.110.x - New
Site3 - 192.168.100.x - New

We have DCPromod the new DC's and installed DNS. DNS has replicated OK. Are
there any other changes I need to do?

TIA

Chris

"Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
news:eANdf7$ZHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We have just added a new Site to our existing AD.
>
> Site1 - 10.6.x.x - Existing
> Site2 - 192.168.110.x - New
> Site3 - 192.168.100.x - New
>
> We have DCPromod the new DC's and installed DNS. DNS has replicated OK.
> Are there any other changes I need to do?

You may have done all of the following but check them anyway:

Create a site for each location
(Optionally rename the Default-First-Site-Name to HQ or some
meaningful name but I will refer to it as the Default site here)
Create subnet(s) for all the IP subnets at each location and use these
to define each site
Create a SiteLINK that represents each physical WAN/VPN from
location to HQ or between locations -- I am assuming here that
these are only HQ<->BranchX but that is not a restriction if you
have additional physical lines...
Put the HQ-Default Site and each BranchX in the apppropriate
SiteLINK
Remove the BranchX site from the Default-IP-SiteLink

STOP. Replicatte everything. Up to here you have made not real
change to the DCs that already exist.

Check replication with "DCDiag /c" and search for WARN and FAIL
messages.

Then: Right click on each DC in Sites and Services and MOVE it to the
CORRECT site.

Recheck with DCDiag /c.


--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)

Thanks Herb

Are you saying i need to create a sitelink for each new site to the existing
and not use the defaultsitelink ?

Is there any benefit of doing this and if so should I delete the
defaultsitelink?

Cheers

Chris
"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:Oxna8rAaHHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:eANdf7$ZHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> We have just added a new Site to our existing AD.
>>
>> Site1 - 10.6.x.x - Existing
>> Site2 - 192.168.110.x - New
>> Site3 - 192.168.100.x - New
>>
>> We have DCPromod the new DC's and installed DNS. DNS has replicated OK.
>> Are there any other changes I need to do?
>
> You may have done all of the following but check them anyway:
>
> Create a site for each location
> (Optionally rename the Default-First-Site-Name to HQ or some
> meaningful name but I will refer to it as the Default site here)
> Create subnet(s) for all the IP subnets at each location and use these
> to define each site
> Create a SiteLINK that represents each physical WAN/VPN from
> location to HQ or between locations -- I am assuming here that
> these are only HQ<->BranchX but that is not a restriction if you
> have additional physical lines...
> Put the HQ-Default Site and each BranchX in the apppropriate
> SiteLINK
> Remove the BranchX site from the Default-IP-SiteLink
>
> STOP. Replicatte everything. Up to here you have made not real
> change to the DCs that already exist.
>
> Check replication with "DCDiag /c" and search for WARN and FAIL
> messages.
>
> Then: Right click on each DC in Sites and Services and MOVE it to the
> CORRECT site.
>
> Recheck with DCDiag /c.
>
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> (phone on web site)
>

"Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23fSXkNVaHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Herb
>
> Are you saying i need to create a sitelink for each new site to the
> existing and not use the defaultsitelink ?

If you wish to control the way the KCC replicates using your WAN
lines.

IF yuou only had 2 Sites then the Default-Ip-Sitelink would always
work just fine.

IF you have 3+ sites but they all had a direct connection of equal speed
and desirability then likely this sitelink would be fine too.

But if you have more than 2 sites without the links existing between EVERY
"pair" or with those links have different speeds/reliability/etc then the
default
site link no longer makes sense.

> Is there any benefit of doing this and if so should I delete the
> defaultsitelink?

I would leave the default-ip-siteLink but (always) leave it EMPTY of
Sites -- since I create the correct site links and give them names that make
it clear what they do.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)

Thanks again Herb,

One more quick question. If I create sitelinks for each location will they
automatically bridge to another in the event of a loss of one of them?

TIA
Chris

"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:eSxVsaWaHHA.5080@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23fSXkNVaHHA.3996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks Herb
>>
>> Are you saying i need to create a sitelink for each new site to the
>> existing and not use the defaultsitelink ?
>
> If you wish to control the way the KCC replicates using your WAN
> lines.
>
> IF yuou only had 2 Sites then the Default-Ip-Sitelink would always
> work just fine.
>
> IF you have 3+ sites but they all had a direct connection of equal speed
> and desirability then likely this sitelink would be fine too.
>
> But if you have more than 2 sites without the links existing between EVERY
> "pair" or with those links have different speeds/reliability/etc then the
> default
> site link no longer makes sense.
>
>> Is there any benefit of doing this and if so should I delete the
>> defaultsitelink?
>
> I would leave the default-ip-siteLink but (always) leave it EMPTY of
> Sites -- since I create the correct site links and give them names that
> make
> it clear what they do.
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> (phone on web site)
>

"Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23YkiAJYaHHA.4508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks again Herb,
>
> One more quick question. If I create sitelinks for each location will they
> automatically bridge to another in the event of a loss of one of them?

Yes.

It is usually called "SiteLink Bridging" but I personally teach all my
students
and other friends to alter this name to "SiteLink Bridge GROUPING" because
the term "bridge" or bridging" is extremely misleading. The effect of this
feature is to treat all pairs, triples, etc of SiteLinks as "transitively
grouped"
into a virtual sitelink with a cost equal to the sum of the component
SiteLinks.

The checkbox used to disable this is labeled "Bridge all site links" -- but
most people should leave this alone with the general exceptions being (some
of) those who have a non-fully routed network.

--
Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
http://www.LearnQuick.Com
(phone on web site)

Thanks again Herb !!


"Herb Martin" <news@learnquick.com> wrote in message
news:%23tC93SZaHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "Chris D" <cdove@no.myrealbox.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23YkiAJYaHHA.4508@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks again Herb,
>>
>> One more quick question. If I create sitelinks for each location will
>> they automatically bridge to another in the event of a loss of one of
>> them?
>
> Yes.
>
> It is usually called "SiteLink Bridging" but I personally teach all my
> students
> and other friends to alter this name to "SiteLink Bridge GROUPING" because
> the term "bridge" or bridging" is extremely misleading. The effect of
> this
> feature is to treat all pairs, triples, etc of SiteLinks as "transitively
> grouped"
> into a virtual sitelink with a cost equal to the sum of the component
> SiteLinks.
>
> The checkbox used to disable this is labeled "Bridge all site links" --
> but
> most people should leave this alone with the general exceptions being
> (some
> of) those who have a non-fully routed network.
>
> --
> Herb Martin, MCSE, MVP
> http://www.LearnQuick.Com
> (phone on web site)
>
>
>