[isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

You’re not the first person to think “white noise” was racist babblings…

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 1:41 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

Hey, at least MY wife doesn’t bitch about me having a flat signal…

t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Greg Mulholland
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 1:36 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

You kidding? You’ve always been way off balance

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Monday, 28 December 2009 8:29 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

Not anymore… I’m strictly middle of the range now…

t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 12:29 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

You’re always looking for treble…

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 9:32 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

The was too much treble while I read it.

t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:36 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

Could you elaborate on what you mean by “the tone”?
While we realize we’re likely to upset some folks, that’s clearly not on the 
list of goals for this doc..

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of John Wilson
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 7:02 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

Originally, my point was I didn't like the tone of the unsupported configs doc.

I can now see the point of publishing this so people can know what they are 
getting into ahead of time.

2nd point: As with all things, I know when migrating 32 bit to 64 bit is 
necessary. When we "tore down the network", it wasn't because we didn't know 
what we were doing, it was an intentional redesign with days / weeks of 
planning. I'm usually the first one to suggest the 64-bit deal if it's an 
option. I just said it sucks - as in, it's not conveinient. EVEN IF a direct 
path were offered for 32-bit to 64-bit migration were technically feasable, I 
would STILL go with a clean install for the 64-bit for obvious reasons.

As I said before, TMG as a product is fine.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 26, 2009, at 10:39 PM, "Thor (Hammer of God)" 
<thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
You misunderstood what I said:  I wasn’t saying to tear down the entire network 
to get it to X64 – I was saying to John, “remember when we tore down the 
network,” (and did not go into those reasons, as he knows).  We had very good 
reason to have to do so – and DID so in a corporate environment.  If anyone was 
going to do the stoning it was us.  The point is that sometimes you have to do 
things you don’t want to do in order to get to the “right place.”  You just 
have to define what “the right place” is.   Migrating 14 servers is no big 
deal.  Migrating 1400 just requires a proper plan of action...

No one said this would be easy.  If anyone could do this, they wouldn’t need 
us- they’d hire college kids…  KNOWING the difference between TMG and ISA, I 
can why they did what they did…  If others don’t want to upgrade (for reasons 
that I personally would call “lazy”) then that’s fine.  They don’t have to.   
If dude wants to can TMG/ISA because he doesn’t feel like doing the work, then 
goody for thim… That’s what my point was.

t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Mulholland
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:52 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

That’s really great, but i’m not about to ‘tear down my entire’ network to get 
it to x64. In a corporate environment you’d be stoned to death for even 
mentioning such. I kind of agree with everyone a little bit, i personally am 
planning a swing migration as its the best way i find i can reduce the downtime 
window to me end users. It was always the same with Exchange 2007 and Moss and 
others deal with it if you want it, if it doesn’t add value to you then you are 
not bound to upgrade, the choice is yours.

Jim is right where there have been many hidden unsupported config’s for MS 
products and ive only found out after ive installed the product when problems 
occur. Personally i’d rather know before hand.

Hope you all had a good Christmas.

Greg

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Thursday, 24 December 2009 5:59 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

First off, I very much respect your opinion…  But we had x86 to x64 
conversations YEARS ago… Remember when we tore down the entire network and 
rebuilt it from scratch?  It was necessary..  Sometimes you have to do that.  
We have to progress, and sometimes doing so is not easy.

t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:42 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

I read the list of unsupported scenarios. While I agree there is a certain 
extent of necessity of unsupported configs due to the changes in underlying 
code /technologies, to me, this reads off on a wrong note.

It's almost like Microsoft has taken a "You have to a given configuration, or 
else the product is not supported." attitude. In the past, I think they have 
been more of a "technology empowers business" attitude. The shift in mentality, 
for this piece of product documentation at least, bothers me.

Hey, this may be just me reading it the wrong way, but if I was using ISA 2006 
in organization, I could see where the decision makers would look at the list 
of unsupported configurations and say, "ISA and TMG costs a lot in liscensing, 
and seems like it isn't as flexible as the older product. Let's look at other 
options."

That may or may not be a fair statement. But if I showed the documentation to 
certain people, I'm sure the project to upgrade wouldn't get approved.

As far as 32-bit 2003 to 64-bit 2008 with no direct upgrade path, that sucks. 
But its the same issue users faced migrating from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 
2007. So it's not a new thing. It's to be expected for certain products if you 
want to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture.

John Wilson

________________________________
From: Jim Harrison <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: "isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wed, December 23, 2009 1:05:35 PM
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported
Since you're interested in maintaining service during the change from ISA to 
TMG, you can't use an in-place upgrade anyway. At some point in any in-place 
upgrade process, that server is off-line. No getting around it.

Have you ever considered a rolling upgrade?
At most, it costs you 1 or 2 extra servers (that can be included or repurposed 
afterwards) and allows you to "silently" move your users from one deployment to 
another.
If you do this on virtual deployments, it's even easier.
Chapter 6 in the TMG book (also to be a sample chapter) is dedicated to this 
thought process and offers an example of "rolling" from ISA 2006 SE to TMG EE.

..it's only as hard as you choose to make it.
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of D PIETRUSZKA USWRN INTERLINK INFRA 
SHIFT MGR [DPietruszka@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:57 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported
For the OS don’t use excuses, Microsoft always did the same with ISA and lately 
with a lot of other products just to force you to migrate to 64 bits or 2008.
And the instances, I have 14 (well there are 2 others not really in use) ISAs 
servers in total, believe me I would find out a way to continue protecting the 
network or providing proxy service while migrating other boxes.

It is just a pain in …. to always do the same thing, that is why I promised 
last time to don’t migrate to the next ISA version, the pain that was move from 
2004 to 2006 was not worth the advantages on the new version.

Believe me I’m closer to look for other products rather than upgrading, that is 
why I would like to read about the advantages.

Regards
Diego R. Pietruszka
MIS - Shift Manager
MSC (USA) - Interlink Transport Technologies
Direct Phone: (908)605-4147

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:45 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

When you figure out how to do an "in place upgrade" from WS03 x86 to WS08 x64, 
you let us know?
..oh; and while you're at it, be sure to describe how the ISA 2006 instance is 
to continue operating (necessary for an in-place upgrade) on WS08 x64?

Seriously; some in-place changes just aren't possible.

________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of D PIETRUSZKA USWRN INTERLINK INFRA 
SHIFT MGR [DPietruszka@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 9:41 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported
Is there any link with a description of the advantages or new features of TMG 
over ISA2006? I want to see if playing the crappy Microsoft game of never offer 
an in place upgrade is worth or not the effort.

Thanks

Regards
Diego R. Pietruszka

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:33 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] Re: TMG Unsupported

Shouldn’t one say “TMG is not supported on ‘certain’ editions” rather than “on 
all editions?  It makes it sound like every edition of 2008 is not supported.
t

From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:29 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [isalist] TMG Unsupported

We just published the “unsupported stuff” for TMG on TechNet.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee796231.aspx is your link of 
reference.

Other related posts: