RE: New drive mapping question

From: Andy Nolen-Parkhouse

> If we're putting stuff in the archives, I'd like to add a few
> comments because I believe there are some inaccuracies and/or 
> dated information in the text below.

You know that sense of satisfaction one feels when they think they've
been able to help another in some way? I actually felt that for a brief
moment today after reading Joe's reply. Then I clicked "next" and found
your own message, with it's claim that I've just published a bunch of
nonsense. Bummer. :)

Of course, I don't think any of it is innaccurate or dated, otherwise I
wouldn't have posted it in the first place; so I'll try it again.


> I think that Joe's question was really, "Can an AS/400 or 
> Linux box be a domain controller?"  The answer is no.  I'm 
> not that familiar with Samba, but I do know the AS/400 and it 
> cannot be the Domain controller.


Samba, as of version 2.2, can be configured as a Primary Domain
controller. Samba does not yet support BDC replication or domain trusts.
The Samba TNG project is a fork of the original Samba project, created
with the objective of providing a fully functional NT/2K  domain
controller running on *nix.

As stated in my original message, the iSeries NetServer appears to be
functionally equivalent to Samba. I provided the following link for
those interested in the details:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/iseries/v5r2/ic2924/index.htm?info/rzahl/r
zahldmnlogonspt.htm

A brief excerpt follows:

"iSeries NetServer provides specific services necessary or directly
related to logon support. Thus, iSeries NetServer will identify itself
as a PDC and function as a Domain Master Browser (DMB) if it is
configured as a Logon Server, but iSeries NetServer cannot function as a
Backup Domain Controller, nor can it dynamically replicate Logon related
information to WinNT Domain Controllers."

The Windows Server on iSeries (WSOI), aka IPCS, aka FSIOP, provides full
domain controller functionality. Once again, the link for those who
require the details:

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/iseries/v5r2/ic2924/info/rzahq/rzahqntspo.
htm


> PDC and BDC are no longer used except in the NT 
> configuration.  The domain controllers are now peers in a 
> Windows 2000 configuration.  They all replicate to each other.

That's a big "except". The "NT configuration", usually referred to as a
"Mixed Mode Domain", remains a dominant force in what I see of the
installed base. Ideally, one should understand the role each type of
controller plays in either an NT or a W2K domain. 

> Domains are still the model in Windows networking.  While 
> there have been some changes since NT 4.0, the basic concepts 
> are the same and they are still referred to as domains.

While the name "domain" stays the same in the W2K model, the
architecture of a domain in W2K changes significantly. In W2K, structure
elements such as Domains and Trusts resemble their NT ancestors;
however, there are many more design elements to consider during
implementation. Forests, Trees, Child Domains, Organizational Units,
Transitive Trusts; none of which existed under NT, all play an important
role within Active Directory.

My exact comment was "W2K Server may emulate a domain controller, but
domains are no longer the native administrative tool in a Windows 2000
network; they have been dropped in favour of Active Directory". This was
truly a poor choice of words. 

The message I was trying to convey is that the PDC/BDC/Domain concept is
no longer the native administrative/organizational model used by W2K.
The Active Directory --in which Domains are one of the building blocks--
is the new framework used to define and administer the logical structure
of your network.

It's difficult to distill Windows Networking concepts down to a brief
email message; especially if, like me, one is not a gifted writer to
begin with. Fortunately, many good internet resources and books are
available which deal with this subject matter exclusively. 

Of course, none of this addressed Joe's actual problem -- because it was
never intended to. The process of connecting to a NetServer share comes
up on the list on a regular basis, so I was quite confident that Joe
would receive many good replies related to the specifics. I thought that
it might be helpful to say a few words on Domains instead, since he
asked about them.


John Taylor