[ExchangeList] Re: is using site link cost a good idea

  • From: "Michael B. Smith" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:20:13 -0400

The primary reason RGCs were removed is that it's duplicate code. The AD KCC
and ISTG were developed from Exchange's link-state code.


You can completely duplicate your RGC setup with AD sites. You have the
capability to set exchange-specific site costs and you have the capability
of defining a specific HT(s) as a bridgehead server to allow you to
completely specify your mailflow. You don't need to involve the AD team.
Now, as bandwidth is a shared resource between AD and Exchange - you
probably should. And you probably should be involving them in those
discussions with Exchange 2003.


The only reason you might need to involve the AD team is if you need a site
that doesn't already exist, but is instead being covered by another site.


Your HT has to talk to AD anyway, to know what mailbox server hosts a
mailbox. Saying that it is because of site routing is specious.


If you couldn't find a mail-flow issue, even when working with PSS, you
should have requested escalation.




Michael B. Smith




From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Praveen Ramaswamy
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 10:21 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] is using site link cost a good idea



I want to know how many of you think that exchange 2007 using AD site link
to decide the route is a good idea and why do you think so!


I think it is NOT a good idea! Following are the reasons for thinking so:


.         I love exchange 2003, we have quite a big setup and exchange 2003
runs rock solid. More importantly for 99% of the problems we could find root

.         Need to open additional ports through firewall for HT / AD server
communications (We have e2k7 sites across firewall due to business reasons).

.         Mail flow troubleshooting is more complicated than just trying
"telnet port 25". We had two mail flow incidents but we could not find root
cause even after working with MS PSS team.

.         Most of the big setups will have windows and messaging verticals
as separate verticals, even Microsoft recommends the same, given this we
need to request windows team for any route modification, also if they modify
AD site cost for any reasons without telling us then it will effect mail

.         Trouble shooting can be lot more complicated as we need check
authentication with AD in a particular site and also AD site links.

.         Customizing the mail path is not straight forward . At least MS
consultant keeps telling me that e2k7 first tries direct connection then
checks AD site cost, but never tells how to make e2k7 not to try direct
connection and always force it to use a specific path. Is there a solution
to this?? I need this to avoid using low end HT server for mail exchange
just because it near to the destination, I want mail to flow through other
path on which we have high end server, though It increases 1 hop.

.         I don't see any major benefit in using AD site link cost over RGC


I am not an expert on e2k7 hence I am writing this mail thinking someone
might prove me wrong by giving some valid reasons. I eagerly waiting to read
some interesting inputs. 



Praveen R


Other related posts: