Hello Stephane,
If there is not really a need for a security boundary i owuld use a single
forest model. This will save you additional work, creating and monitoring
a trust for access the other forest.
If you have the need for separation you can also use a perimeter network,
DMZ:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l...34(WS.10).aspx
Best regards
Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!!
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
> French version at the end of the message.
>
> I'm designing a Windows 2008 R2 architecture, this architecture have
> presented two models. The first is designed with two forest, one
> internal and one in the DMZ. The second model is composed of a single
> forest with many domain. I will tend the proposed model with two
> forest, but people side application requires only forest, which their
> views would simplify the deployment and application management of type
> SharePoint. In saying that safety is not really impacting.
>
> I'd like to have your opinion and impact safety rated the model or the
> other.
>
> Thank you
>
> Stephen Munger
>
> (french)
>
> Deux forets ou une seul foret
>
> Je suis Ă* concevoir une architecture Windows 2008 R2, dans cette
> architecture j’ai présenté deux modèles. Le premier est conçu avec
> deux forets, l’un Ă* l’interne et l’autre dans la DMZ. Le second modèle
> est composé d’un seul modèle avec plusieurs forets. J’aurai tendance a
> proposé le modèle avec deux forets, mais les gens coté applicatif
> requière une seul foret, qui a leurs point de vue simplifierait le
> déploiement et la gestion d’application du type SharePoint. En disant
> que la sécurité ne serait pas vraiment impacter.
>
> J’aimerai avoir votre opinion coté sécurité et l’impact du modèle ou
> l’autres.
>
> Merci
>
> Stéphane Munger
>