Win2K server implementing

[KJ]

OK here's the situation. I am kind of a newbie on the "windows 2000 server'
platform. I know my way around with Windows NT4. I do have (a lot of)
questions before I can implement the new servers..
I no have at 4 (remote)locations 4 Windows NT4 servers running, all of them
are PDC's with their own domains; DOM1, with 1 NT4 server and about 25
clients, all Win9x and WinME, some Win2000 prof. In total there are no more
then 50 users.
DOM2; 1 NT4 server with 6 Win9x/WinME clients,
DOM3; 1 NT4 server with 6 Win9x/WinME clients, & DOM4; 1 NT4 server with 6
Win9x/WinME clients,). The domains are connected to each other through a VPN
(WINS and trust relationships). There is no actual need for users to share
all the files from the 4 locations or the need for only one central file
server. A lot of files are used locally anyhow. And I do not want to depend
on the VPN connection too much. But there might be a need for some files.

The whole idea about domains (and DNS) in Win2K server is based on the
'internet model'(as I understand it) (domains are now always with an
extension etc.). For us there is no actual need for that, the whole internet
is out of the office anyhow (ISP), our current domain (company.nl) is also
stationed at the ISP, so not usable as the internal network domain I would
say.

I am not going to upgrade the NT servers, because hew hardware is going to
be placed anyway, so this is a good change to go for a complete new
structure. (There is no so much to upgrade anyhow, not so many shares and
printers etc.)
SO I want to start from scratch with the 2000 server environment (AD, WINS,
DNS??, etc.)
I did some reading, and do not know what the best solution is for me. For a
start; should I go for 1 domain, and make the remote locations a sub domain
with their own Win2k Servers (DC's)? Or should I stick with 4 different
domains and 4 Win2K servers (DC's).

Should the Win2K serves run in native mode? (Over a period from a week I
want to replace all the NT servers with 2k) Or should it run in mixed mode.
(I do have only Win9X and WinME and some Win2000 clients.)

Should I make one tree for all the locations? So headquarter is; company.nl
and the remote locations are loc1.company.nl, loc2.company.nl &
loc3.company.nl. Or should I go for 4 forests between the 4 locations and
let them all have their own domain? (company1.nl, company2.nl, company3.nl
and company4.nl)
I do no have the need for a lot of tree's, one root (per location) is
sufficient. (remember; I do not have to 'go public' with the domain(name)s).

And then in either one of the situations, how do I 'connect all the 4
servers with each other? Do I use WINS or DNS or both? A (hardware/stand
alone) router on all the 4 location takes care of the VPN connections and
the routing).

What about the IP addresses? Now I have the following: LOC1 has 192.168.1.x
(255.255.255.0) range, LOC2 has 192.168.2.x, LOC3 has: 192.168.3.x and LOC4;
192.168.4.x.
Should I choose a different subnet to make the VPN connection more easy?
Something like: LOC1: 192.168.10.x (255.255.0.0), LOC2: 192.168.20.x
(255.255.0.0) etc.?

Well you see, a lot of questions still, I hope it's understandable en that
someone can help me here...thanks ahead!!

 

[Richard G. Harper]

It's rather difficult to answer this kind of question, because it usually
requires a bit of on-site analysis and thought about what you expect to gain
with the upgrade. Generally one hires a local expert and expects to spend a
couple weeks (at least!) planning and executing the WAN/LAN buildout.

First though, you do want to use an "internet" type name for your domain.
Failing to do so often results in very interesting (expensive) problems, and
often winds up being a RGE (Resume-Generating Event). Make the
dot-extension something that doesn't resolve into a real-world name, like
DOMAIN1.LOCAL or DOMAIN1.LAN - but do use the full naming convention.

Whether you want four domains or four trees in a single forest domain or a
single domain depends on how much remote sites need to talk to each other
and share resources. I would recommend either a flat single domain if you
share many resources between sites since this would be easier to maintain,
trees in a forest if there is some sharing between sites. I would not
recommend four domains unless the sites share nothing and you're willing to
maintain four domains.

If you start from scratch you're going to have to re-create all accounts,
shares, etc. Keep that in mind. If you don't care then I don't.

Addressing between sites also depends on how you decide to implement the
domain. Each site should have its own range of addresses but if you need to
interconnect them then you need a way to route between the sites.

I would recommend that you start here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/default.asp


--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm