<div>
Why one domain and two sites, rather than two domains and two sites ?
</div>


<div>
Because you don't really gain anything with the extra domain and it just increases your costs (need 4 DCs instead of 2) and administrative burden. &nbsp;<br />
Not sure if you have seen this but a really good article over at activedir.org about this exact question<br />
<a href="http://www.activedir.org/Articles/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Default.aspx" rel="ugc">http://www.</a>activedir.org/Articles/tab<wbr />id/54/arti<wbr />cleType/Ar<wbr />ticleView/<wbr />articleId/<wbr />68/Default<wbr />.aspx<br />
<i>Multiple Domain Forests: Still a Valid Design Model?</i> <br />
If you start off with one and for some reason you do need to add another domain down the road it is not hard to do. &nbsp;I think one should meet your needs though.<br />
Thanks<br />
Mike<br />

</div>


<div>
Excellent article, thanks for that. &nbsp;I guess having one domain makes migration easier as well.<br />
<br />
Mnay thanks :)
</div>


<div>
<div class="content wysiwyg-content">
We currently have two sites at over ends of the country with numerous workstations at each. &nbsp;We have an NT 4 domain with the PDC at one site and the BDC at the other.<br />
We wish to migrate to Active Directory using 2003 server, and are wondering what the best implementation would be<br />
One forest with two domains, one at each site (each site also then being an Active Directory site), or perhaps just one domain spread across two logical and physical sites, in both cases having a domain controller at each site.<br />

</div>
</div>


We currently have two sites at over ends of the country with numerous workstations at each.  We have an NT 4 domain with the PDC at one site and the BDC at the other.
We wish to migrate to Active Directory using 2003 server, and are wondering what the best implementation would be
One forest with two domains, one at each site (each site also then being an Active Directory site), or perhaps just one domain spread across two logical and physical sites, in both cases having a domain controller at each site.


Active Directory Implementation Thoughts.

The Windows operating systems have distinct methodologies for designing and implementing networks, and have specific systems to accomplish various networking processes, such as Exchange for email, Sharepoint for shared files and programs, and IIS for delivery of web pages. Microsoft also produces server technologies for networked database use, security and virtualization.

Windows Networking

Windows Server 2003 was based on Windows XP and was released in four editions: Web, Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter. It also had derivative versions for clusters, storage and Microsoft’s Small Business Server. Important upgrades included integrating Internet Information Services (IIS), improvements to Active Directory (AD) and Group Policy (GP), and the migration to Automated System Recovery (ASR).

Windows Server 2003

Active Directory (AD) is a Microsoft brand for identity-related capabilities. In the on-premises world, Windows Server AD provides a set of identity capabilities and services, and is hugely popular (88% of Fortune 1000 and 95% of enterprises use AD). This topic includes all things Active Directory including DNS, Group Policy, DFS, troubleshooting, ADFS, and all other topics under the Microsoft AD and identity umbrella.