About Me

My photo
TsooRad is a blog for John Weber. John is a Skype for Business MVP (2015-2016) - before that, a Lync Server MVP (2010-2014). My day job is titled "Technical Lead, MS UC" - I work with an awesome group of people at CDW, LLC. I’ve been at this gig in one fashion or another since 1988 - starting with desktops (remember Z-248’s?) and now I am in Portland, Oregon. I focus on collaboration and infrastructure. This means Exchange of all flavors, Skype, LCS/OCS/Lync, Windows, business process, and learning new stuff. I have a variety of interests - some of which may rear their ugly head in this forum. I have a variety of certifications dating back to Novell CNE and working up through the Microsoft MCP stack to MCITP multiple times. FWIW, I am on my third career - ex-USMC, retired US Army. I have a fancy MBA. One of these days, I intend to start teaching. The opinions expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone.

2017/07/28

SfB Default AD Containers

Scenario

You know how those tin-foil-hat types are…

image

If it can be changed to “enhance” security, then by golly!  Let’s do it!  The problem, of course, is the rule of unintended consequences.  You know, what happens to something else because of action A, that is totally unplanned, and no one knows about it.

And, while I am mentioning it… have you ever noticed that the same team YOU have to run everything through for approval never asks your team if it is OK if they make a change?  They just do it?  Odd how that works out, eh?

Adelante.

The Oops!

It turns out that about 6 weeks ago, the aforementioned team instituted a change to the default AD containers.  To whit, they changed the default computer container to be something other than the OOBE.

Turns out that breaks SfB big time.  As in no more publishing the topology.  A Get-CsAdDomain fails.  But that is the clue to the fix.

The Fix

Simply run the SfB Domain prep again.


YMMV

No comments:

SfB Default AD Containers

Scenario You know how those tin-foil-hat types are… If it can be changed to “enhance” security, then by golly!  Let’s do it!  The problem, o...