Domain Naming Convention Question

[cswarr]

I'm thinking about adding a child domain in my forest that
would be called domain.noparent.com However, it would
actually be a child domain of our forest root domain,
parent.com. Will AD accept and function with the child
domain specified above, even though there is no
noparent.com domain above it? There will be a
noparent.com DNS domain to support domain.noparent.com.
Thanks.

 

[Herb Martin]

I'm thinking about adding a child domain in my forest that
would be called domain.noparent.com However, it would
actually be a child domain of our forest root domain,
parent.com.

If it is not a DNS child, then it is not referred to as a "child domain."
but will rather become a new tree.

Will AD accept and function with the child
domain specified above, even though there is no
noparent.com domain above it?

Yes, either way but it really sounds like a root of a new tree that
will join the existing forest. It will NOT be a child of any existing
domain however.

There will be a
noparent.com DNS domain to support domain.noparent.com.

That is not strictly necessary if there is not a "noparent.com" AD
domain. (You may need it just to work out your DNS strategy
but it is not a direct requirement like the dynamic DNS zone
which must be created to correspond to each AD domain.

Multiple trees are fine -- trees are almost entirely irrelevant to
in Win2000+ despite what you might hear in some classes or
see in some book the only real implication is that you are
adding a domain that doesn't have it's parent already in the
forest.

 

[cswarr]

Thanks for the reply. A new tree is exactly what I don't
want. I want this new domain to become a child of
parent.com, it simply won't have a typical name like
child.parent.com; it will be domain.noparent.com. This is
necessary because we are absorbing an external companies
network and we want to keep their exiting domain intact:
noparent.com. The domain.noparent.com would house all of
their workstations and servers and be under the
administratively control of our parent.com domain.

 

[Herb Martin]

Thanks for the reply. A new tree is exactly what I don't
want. I want this new domain to become a child of
parent.com,
Why?

it simply won't have a typical name like
child.parent.com;

It must to be a "child" -- by definition.

But there is no effective* difference between it being a child or
a new tree. That distinction is made SIMPLY by the choice of
name.

*There is one obscure difference but that can be avoided in the
rare case where it is a problem.

it will be domain.noparent.com.

Then it starts a new tree.

This is
necessary because we are absorbing an external companies
network and we want to keep their exiting domain intact:
noparent.com.

Not an issue -- it's new tree in your forest. Relax, that's the
purpose of trees.

The domain.noparent.com would house all of
their workstations and servers and be under the
administratively control of our parent.com domain.

Child domains are under almost no adminstrative control
of the parent.com and trees within the forest have that
exact same relationship.

Somethings like Enterprise Admins or Schema Admins
are forest wide; they have power over both child and
separate tree domains as long as it is a single forest.

Also, authorizing DHCP servers.

What benefit do you think you are going to miss?