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
> wrote:
You misunderstood what I said: I wasn’t saying to tear down the ent
ire 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 do
n’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 actio
n...
No one said this would be easy. If anyone could do this, they would
n’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 do
n’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, th
en goody for thim… That’s what my point was.
t
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Mulholland
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2009 12:52 PM
To: 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 w
ith everyone a little bit, i personally am planning a swing migratio
n 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 ot
hers deal with it if you want it, if it doesn’t add value to you the
n 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 produ
ct 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] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Thursday, 24 December 2009 5:59 AM
To: 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 netwo
rk and rebuilt it from scratch? It was necessary.. Sometimes you h
ave to do that. We have to progress, and sometimes doing so is not
easy.
t
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-
bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:42 AM
To: 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>
To: "isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 [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
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 migrat
e 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 p
romised 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 upgradi
ng, 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] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:45 PM
To: 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 [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
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] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:33 PM
To: 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] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:29 AM
To: 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.
