Consolidating domains

[Guest]

We have a site that is on our Windows 2003 domain. At that same site they
have a seperate lab domain that is on a different subnet. We are not able to
communicate with that domain and we need to. The lab domain is windows 2000.
We need to change the subnet for the Windows 2000 domain. We don't want the
domains to trust each other though. Can I use my Windows 2003 Active
Directory DNS to service this other domain? Will the lab domain AD fail if
the DNS server is turned off in that domain?

 

[Herb Martin]

We have a site that is on our Windows 2003 domain. At that same site they
have a seperate lab domain that is on a different subnet. We are not able to
communicate with that domain and we need to. The lab domain is windows

2000.

What precisely do you mean by "not able to communicate"?

Can you ping? Just by nunber? By name too?

Is it a browsing problem? (You need WINS servers
for browsing across subnets, especially for browsing
across multiple domains.)

We need to change the subnet for the Windows 2000 domain.

What do you mean "change the subnet"?

We don't want the domains to trust each other though.

That require WINS server too when you need external
trusts and there are multiple subnet involved.

You don't have these domains in the same forest, do you?

Can I use my Windows 2003 Active
Directory DNS to service this other domain?

"To service"? It cannot authenticate another domains
users or machines, but you can create trusts and share
recources.

Will the lab domain AD fail if
the DNS server is turned off in that domain?

Well, AD authentication and replication will not
work correctly without DNS (setup correctly.)

 

[Guest]

At this point the other network is not physically connected. It is a 192.
local domain, with one 2000 domain controller, it only has 30 clients all
with static IP addresses. We will be physically connecting this network and
placing it in our 172. network range. My plan is to change all of the IP
addresses in the 192 network manually, and then creating a zone in my 2003
domain with all of the converted ip addresses. The only communication we want
between the two domains is the ability to netmeeting into it from our site.
I will just leave the DNS running in both domains. Their is only one DC for
the 2000 domain so it won't affect replication and I think seeing how
everything is static authentication should be fine also. Does this sound
correct?

 

[Herb Martin]

At this point the other network is not physically connected. It is a 192.
local domain, with one 2000 domain controller, it only has 30 clients all
with static IP addresses. We will be physically connecting this network and
placing it in our 172. network range.

Why? Why not just keep a router between (putting it on the
same segment as your other machines will increase bandwidth
saturation and keeping it separated by a router it will not matter
whether the address stays at 192.168 or is on some 172.16-31
range.

My plan is to change all of the IP
addresses in the 192 network manually, and then creating a zone in my 2003
domain with all of the converted ip addresses. The only communication we want
between the two domains is the ability to netmeeting into it from our

site.

Those address will neither hinder nor help that goal.

I will just leave the DNS running in both domains. Their is only one DC for
the 2000 domain so it won't affect replication and I think seeing how
everything is static authentication should be fine also. Does this sound
correct?

If you wish to resolve names you may need to make (each) DNS a secondary
for the other DNS zone server.

 

[Guest]

We can't leave it as a 192 because we already are using that 192.168.0 range.
We could possibly use another subnet from the 172, network, but it is so
small I am not worried about using the same subnet for both domains. If I
add the seperate networks IP addresses manually into my 2003 scope it will
resolve the names for Netmeeting, i know this is not necessary, I could just
netmeeting into the servers using the IP address, but for convience sake. I
don't need to be able to resolve names for any other reason.