|
|
|
date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:20:00 -0800,
group: microsoft.public.exchange.design
back
Re: Exchange Server 2007 Roles
Hello Bharat,
Thanks for your advice, I have another doubt, I know that HT co-exist with
the CAS, but I think that the CAS is the ¨front-end¨ server like in Exchange
Server 2003, that need to be published in Internet, so it is a weak
vulnerability that HT is in the same place, isn't it?
Regards,
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote:
> HT and UM can co-exist - now it's the sizing that you need to think about.
> Also add HT role to the CAS.
>
> Ideally you want 2 of both for redundancy... buy as much redundancy you can
> afford now. You can always add more servers later, including virtual
> machines (once MSFT supports VMs for Exchange Server 2007).
>
> --
> Bharat Suneja
> MVP - Exchange
> www.zenprise.com
> NEW blog location:
> exchangepedia.com/blog
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Hugo" wrote in message
> news:FDD82062-925A-4B5F-B7B3-04CEDF4D79EB@microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have 4 server to deploy exchange server 2007, and I have thought that
> > the best way to distribuite the roles are as follow:
> >
> > 2 Mailbox (Cluster)
> > 1 Hub Transport and Unified Messaging
> > 1 Client Access
> >
> > Is it recomendable that I have hub transport and unified messaging
> > together?
> >
> > Is there somebody that can give some advices abou it?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
>
>
>
date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:01:01 -0800
author: Hugo
Re: Exchange Server 2007 Roles
Not necessarily. As far as security is concerned, you've already bet the
farm (in a manner of speaking) by exposing CAS. If that gets compromised,
your Hubs (and other servers for that matter) are easy targets. Hopefully
you're using an application layer/application-aware firewall/appliance to
publish.
You will also see the Hubs published/exposed to the internet for allowing
access to client connectors for remote IMAP4/POP3 clients, as well as hubs
as targets of MX records.
--
Bharat Suneja
MVP - Exchange
www.zenprise.com
NEW blog location:
exchangepedia.com/blog
----------------------------------------------
"Hugo" wrote in message
news:C27FE9F0-5EE9-4622-80FB-0F65D53157BD@microsoft.com...
> Hello Bharat,
>
> Thanks for your advice, I have another doubt, I know that HT co-exist with
> the CAS, but I think that the CAS is the ¨front-end¨ server like in
> Exchange
> Server 2003, that need to be published in Internet, so it is a weak
> vulnerability that HT is in the same place, isn't it?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> HT and UM can co-exist - now it's the sizing that you need to think
>> about.
>> Also add HT role to the CAS.
>>
>> Ideally you want 2 of both for redundancy... buy as much redundancy you
>> can
>> afford now. You can always add more servers later, including virtual
>> machines (once MSFT supports VMs for Exchange Server 2007).
>>
>> --
>> Bharat Suneja
>> MVP - Exchange
>> www.zenprise.com
>> NEW blog location:
>> exchangepedia.com/blog
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> "Hugo" wrote in message
>> news:FDD82062-925A-4B5F-B7B3-04CEDF4D79EB@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I have 4 server to deploy exchange server 2007, and I have thought
>> > that
>> > the best way to distribuite the roles are as follow:
>> >
>> > 2 Mailbox (Cluster)
>> > 1 Hub Transport and Unified Messaging
>> > 1 Client Access
>> >
>> > Is it recomendable that I have hub transport and unified messaging
>> > together?
>> >
>> > Is there somebody that can give some advices abou it?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>>
>>
>>
date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:26:59 -0800
author: Bharat Suneja [MVP]
|
|
