WindowsServer 2003 Client Access License (CAL) revoked

[Guest]

We purchased 4 "per device" CALs back in 2003 for access to our
WindowsServer-2003 server. I was told by our systems vendor that these CALs
were specific to individual PCs i.e. they were not assigned from a common
pool to the first 4 client machines that requested them.

Recently upon returning from a 4-week vacation I was surprised to find that
my laptop (one of the 4 client machines) was unable to connect to the server
because it did not have a CAL.

On the server I ascertained that there were a total of 6 per Device CALs
issued to 6 different workstations. In addition, I also saw 2 temporary CALs
issued.

My question is, how did my laptop lose its CAL? Are per-device CALs not
bound to specific devices? How do I have 6 CALs when I was only supposed to
have 4? How do I obtain a CAL for my laptop again?

Thanks

Uday Menon

 

[Vera Noest [MVP]]

Unfortunately, you have been misinformed, or there has been a
misunderstanding between you and the reseller.

Per Device TS CALs are specific to a client device in the sense
that they are issued to a specific device and you cannot use them
as a pool of licenses for concurrent usage (i.e. PC1 connects in
the morning, PC2 connects in the afternoon, both use the same TS
CAL is *not* a possible scenario). But they are issued to every
device that requests one on a first-come basis, and there is no way
to manually assign a license to a specific device.

TS CALs have an expiration date of 52-89 days after issueing.
7 days before the expiration date, the client tries to renew its TS
CAL. If it succeeds, the TS CAL is reissued with a new expiration
date. Licenses that are not renewed (because the client does not
connect to the TS anymore) will automatically be returned to the LS
after the expiration date.
This is what has happened to your laptops TS CAL.

When a new client connects and there are no TS CALs available, the
client will get a temporary TS CAL, which is valid for 90 days.

Note that these time periods are choosen to make sure that a
temporary license lasts long enough for the old license to become
available again. So replacing one device with another never causes
a licensing problem.

When an "old" client (which already has received a temporary or
permanent TS CAL previously) tries to connect and there are no TS
CALs available, it will *not* receive a temporary license again, it
will be refused. This again is what happended to your laptop.

Unfortunately, the only options that are open are to either wait
for one of the licenses to expire, or buy more licenses.

What you should do to prevent this from happening again in the
future is to make sure that connections are only made from the
devices that are intended to be used. Give only specific users
access rights to the TS and educate them to use only a designated
client device.

--
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
http://hem.fyristorg.com/vera/IT
--- please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ---

"=?Utf-8?B?VWRheSBNZW5vbg==?=" <Uday
(e-mail address removed)> wrote on 24 mar 2005 in
microsoft.public.win2000.termserv.clients:

 

[Guest]

Hi Vera!

Thank you for your prompt and informative reply. In the Terminal Server
Licensing window (on the server) I noticed that some of the per device CALs
have an expiration period of almost 20 months while some have as low as 2
months. Since you say it shd be in the 52-89 range how do you explain this??

Is there some way for me to invalidate a CAL on a client PC (and thereby
make it available for my laptop)?

Shd my reseller have issued per user CALs in the first place to avoid all
this grief? I noticed one of your posts where you talk about switching the
server configuration from per device to per user CAL licensing. True?
Couldn't I do this?

Thanks

Uday

 

[Vera Noest [MVP]]

I can't explain expiration dates of 20 months ahead (maybe someone
has messed with the system time on a client? unlikely scenario,
though).

No, there is nothing you can do to revoke a TS CAL that has been
issued to a client. You can delete the TS CAL from the client
device, but that will *not* cause it to be returned to the LS
before it is expired. The only effect will be that the client can't
connect anymore.

If you have 4 specific users, which would like to connect from more
than 4 devices, then installing your licenses as Per User licenses
would have been a better choice, yes. Unfortunately, you cannot
switch from Per User to Per Device, unless you have Software
Assurance (check your paperwork, maybe you have).
Changing the licensing mode of the TS is not going to help, since
it will only cause your TS to not find any licenses at all (the TS
would search for Per User licenses and not find any).

I can't see any other options than buying more licenses or waiting
for them to expire. However, there's one more thing: do you happen
to have XP Pro desktop clients, and did you own these XP Pro
licenses before the day of release of Windows 2003 (24 April 2003)?
If so, you can get a free transition TS CAL for every such XP Pro
client.

Terminal Server CAL Transition Plan FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/tscal
transfaq.mspx

Windows Server 2003 Pricing and Licensing FAQ
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricl
icfaq.mspx

--
Vera Noest
MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
http://hem.fyristorg.com/vera/IT
--- please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ---

"=?Utf-8?B?VWRheSBNZW5vbg==?=" <Uday
(e-mail address removed)> wrote on 24 mar 2005 in
microsoft.public.win2000.termserv.clients:

 

[Guest]

No I dont have any XP Pro clients so I guess I'm out of luck. Bummer. Sounds
like I can still login from my desktop at home since this would be a new
client unknown to the server and would be given a temporary CAL. True? That
will tide me over the next 90 days during which time a device CAL shd become
available. I will delete the registry key for the CAL on clients that I dont
want server access from to prevent renewal. Thank you again for your input!
I'm glad I checked on this discussiongroup.

cheers

Uday