• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 105
  • Last Modified:

Upgrade exchange 2003 to 2010, 2003 has no internet facing server (no mobile access)

I'm planning an exchange 2003 to 2010 coexistence to full migration.
I currently have no mobile/internet users. I have just exchange 2003 and exchange smtp delivery gateways. I have no front end server for my internal owa users (yes, you can actually have that configuration and still use owa, it's some kind of loophole in Exchange 2003).
I assume internet facing exchange will be required for 2010.
How should I proceed, and which roles should I install first?
I have my sans certificate from Digicert ready but unpopulated.
0
challBOE
Asked:
challBOE
  • 2
  • 2
2 Solutions
 
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
"no front end server for my internal owa users (yes, you can actually have that configuration and still use owa, it's some kind of loophole in Exchange 2003)."

It isn't a loophole.
A frontend server was never required. You would only deploy one if you had multiple backend servers.

Are you planning to have the roles on separate servers? If so, then you are going against best practise. I haven't separated the roles out for over five years, never on Exchange 2010. I see no point. Best practise is all roles on all servers, with the servers configured as identically as possible.

Therefore just install your first Exchange server, configure the SSL certificate as appropriate, replicate the public folders then do a standard migration.
If you are going to coexist, with Exchange 2003 users using OWA and ActiveSync then you will need a legacy URL for Exchange 2003, with the Exchange 2003 server directly exposed to the internet.

Simon.
0
 
Gareth GudgerCommented:
0
 
challBOEAuthor Commented:
I have three user mailbox servers and 5 (little) just-smtp-delivery servers ( redundancy over 2 locations and two ips providers). A third (party spamsoap) filters and delivers mail incoming. It's the only thing allowed into the LAN. Outgoing mail connects to internet directly through exchange smtp services, but outgoing only. I have no user mailboxes on those gateways.
You all expose mailbox servers to the internet? No DMZ connection to a cal server then authenticate then get access to a mailbox server?
Am I overthinking this?
Thanks for your answers.
(I have 700 users. 300 perms and 400 temps who come and go).
0
 
challBOEAuthor Commented:
Thank you both. Gareth provided a more detailed reference so got the majority of points
0
 
Simon Butler (Sembee)ConsultantCommented:
A DMZ doesn't improve your network security.
Furthermore the only role supported in a DMZ is Edge, which is for SMTP traffic, no other roles are supported in a perimeter network.
I have no problem with exposing Exchange servers straight to the internet. You only need two ports open - 443 and 125. As long as you enforce decent network security on the server and keep it patched then you are fine.

Keep everything very simple. All roles on all servers. If you want redundancy then look at a DAG, an internal load balancer and perhaps a cloud based load balancer for incoming traffic.

Simon.
0

Featured Post

Get free NFR key for Veeam Availability Suite 9.5

Veeam is happy to provide a free NFR license (1 year, 2 sockets) to all certified IT Pros. The license allows for the non-production use of Veeam Availability Suite v9.5 in your home lab, without any feature limitations. It works for both VMware and Hyper-V environments

  • 2
  • 2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now