Domain naming conventions/best practices. Will be deploying Exchange.

I work for a company that is technically "one" company located in two different cities.  Both offices are so independant of each other.  They actually act like two separate companies.  They have separate IT infratructure, separate payroll and account and separate revenue.  Which may be changing.

I have created a domain for one city last year and was told at that time, that the two cities would never need to have a common netowrk infrastructure.  (I did state my case on why they should be and was informed that if the other city chose to create an AD they would be in their own separate forest and domain and manageit their own way).   So with that being said, I created my domain name based on corp.city1.comapany.ca with the knowledge that the two offices will never need any sort of common IT infrastructure.  I figured it was a nice designation of the single network.

Now that management in the other city has changed, the company is evolving and resources from both offices needing access to IT resources in both cities, the talk of deploying exchange corporate wide is now on the table.  The other city will be creating a domain in order to deploy exchange and I've been tasked to lead this whole creation.

With that being said, what would be the best naming convention/deployment solution for the new network.

I would love to rename my domain to corp.company.ca and have two sites in one domain (one in each city), but that is not an option.  I have thought about this and since I have never worked in a multi domained environement (and never deployed one) I would love some feedback.

Can the other domain be the same one I have created (corp.city2.company.ca) and still be part of the same forest?  

I "think" that with the corp in the front and users logging into "corp", it will not know if it's city1, or city2.  That's my concern.

Or should I rename mine to city1.company.ca and the new domain to city2.company.ca?  Thius making people logging into their respective cities, which is their respective domain.

Thanks.
crazycanuck42Asked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

SembeeCommented:
Depending on the resources I would consider a single forest, mutiple domain model.
Have three domains - one for each city and a single resource domain. The resource domain contains the Exchange server and anything else that needs to be shared by all users (perhaps finance and file servers at a later date). It doesn't contain any users.
The users have their accounts in the city domain but can access other resources in the other domain, depending on the permissions that have been set.

You cannot have two domains both called corp, so you should change them to just city1, city2 etc. It puzzles me as to why you used a sub sub domain anyway. If I was setting it up, I would have used the main domain (company.ca) or at most a single sub domain - perhaps "ad.company.ca".

However this all depends on how large the two sites are and what kind of connection is available between the two sites. If we are talking 15 users per office, then it is a total overkill and I would go for a single domain model, with each office having its own dc and possibly Exchange server.
If we are talking 200 users per office, then perhaps either of the scenarios are justified.

Yet if the link between the two sites can only be a wet bit of string at best, then a different model, perhaps seperate domains with trusts might be the better option.

Simon.
0
WeHeCommented:
other considerations:
if you want a complete isolated enviroment, you need 2 forests.
if you have w2k3 domains, you can establish forest trusts to connect them and use the ad's of both.
(but they must have different names)
the easier to administer solution will be a single-domain model and usage of sites.
to serve your spn login needs, you have to make a 3 domain model (root and one domain per site)
0
crazycanuck42Author Commented:
Thanks Sembee... the reson for the sub domain was decided upon well before I got here.  I wanted just city1.company.ca but that collided with some other naming convention that was in place.  Also, it was mentioned that within the city would separate into two companies with two networks, but now that's not going to happen.  

In the three domain model, would I need an exhange front end server with a DC in company.ca and two backend exchange with DC's in city1.company.ca and city2.company.ca?

The link between the offices are basically unlimited.  Right now it's on a 10 MB lan extension, but we actually have OC12 lines connecting the office that I can tap some bandwidth from.  We have about 100 users in each city and 10 more in a third city connected through dual T1.  

What would be the best naming convention with the three domain model?  It has already been agreed that the two forest model is not an option.  I would prefer the one domain model, but I don't hink that would get approval.  Can I get away with a two domain model?  
0
SembeeCommented:
If you went the three domain, single forest model, then all the Exchange resources would sit in the third resource domain - even if this meant that there was an Exchange server in both offices. The problem with this model is hardware. If you went down that path it would require at least eight servers, and that is without redundancy.

Resource domain.
2 x DC (one in each office)
2 x Exchange (one in each office)

City 1 Domain
1 x DC
1 x File and everything else server

City 2 Domain
1 x DC
1 x File and everything else server.

Ideally you should have two domain controllers in each domain.

As for Exchange, a front-end server provides resources for the backend servers, and cannot serve more than one domain. Therefore it would either have to serve Exchange servers in the same domain, or you would need two front-ends, one for each domain. It depends on the model you go for.

However with only 100 users in each city, I would probably consider a single domain, single forest scenario.
Exchange server and DCs in each office to keep the internetwork traffic down. The users can move between offices quite happily and access resources in both sites.
If you need to create login scripts, drive mappings etc, then there are techniques that can be used to identify what site a user is on, or which site they belong to and fire settings appropriately.

Simon.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Windows Server 2003

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.