We have 3 locations, 3 AD sites, internet connectivity for all users goes through one internet link in one site. Is it possible for all inbounf mail flow from the internet to go through one HUB server? and then that HUB servers forwards mail to other HUB servers depending on recipient's location of mailbox? Tnx!
Yes, and that's the typical implementation (inbound to one location). Some Orgs like to leverage their multiple points of presence/internet connectivity and add additional MX records to point to additional locations. This ensures that in case of internet outage at one site, or a site outage, the rest of the Org continues to receive/send internet mail. Deploying an Edge Transort server (or other non-Exchange MTA) to route mail to/from the intenet is always recommended and certainly more secure, but many organizations do receive inbound on their Hub Transport servers as well. Once the message makes it to Exchange, it can determine which server/Site the recipient is in and routes it to the Hub Transport server(s) in the destination. -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------- "Lehr" wrote in message news:98D9905A-66AB-47B9-9650-149A9A7D321A@microsoft.com... > We have 3 locations, 3 AD sites, internet connectivity for all users goes > through one internet link in one site. > Is it possible for all inbounf mail flow from the internet to go through > one > HUB server? and then that HUB servers forwards mail to other HUB servers > depending on recipient's location of mailbox? > > Tnx!
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: > Yes, and that's the typical implementation (inbound to one location). Some > Orgs like to leverage their multiple points of presence/internet > connectivity and add additional MX records to point to additional locations. > This ensures that in case of internet outage at one site, or a site outage, > the rest of the Org continues to receive/send internet mail. > > Deploying an Edge Transort server (or other non-Exchange MTA) to route mail > to/from the intenet is always recommended and certainly more secure, but > many organizations do receive inbound on their Hub Transport servers as > well. Once the message makes it to Exchange, it can determine which > server/Site the recipient is in and routes it to the Hub Transport server(s) > in the destination. Thank you Bharat! :)
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: > Yes, and that's the typical implementation (inbound to one location). Some > Orgs like to leverage their multiple points of presence/internet > connectivity and add additional MX records to point to additional locations. > This ensures that in case of internet outage at one site, or a site outage, > the rest of the Org continues to receive/send internet mail. > > Deploying an Edge Transort server (or other non-Exchange MTA) to route mail > to/from the intenet is always recommended and certainly more secure, but > many organizations do receive inbound on their Hub Transport servers as > well. Once the message makes it to Exchange, it can determine which > server/Site the recipient is in and routes it to the Hub Transport server(s) > in the destination. Just one more dilema.. To provide HA, is it possible to put two HUB's in NLB cluster and inbound mail flow will be directed to CNAME(IP) of that NLB. Is it going to work?
Why not use multiple MX records instead? NLB will work, though. Deployment Options for Hub Transport Servers http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124398(EXCHG.80).aspx -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------- "Lehr" wrote in message news:93A92A8D-801A-4CB6-A2E2-37766D3C5ED0@microsoft.com... > > > "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: > >> Yes, and that's the typical implementation (inbound to one location). >> Some >> Orgs like to leverage their multiple points of presence/internet >> connectivity and add additional MX records to point to additional >> locations. >> This ensures that in case of internet outage at one site, or a site >> outage, >> the rest of the Org continues to receive/send internet mail. >> >> Deploying an Edge Transort server (or other non-Exchange MTA) to route >> mail >> to/from the intenet is always recommended and certainly more secure, but >> many organizations do receive inbound on their Hub Transport servers as >> well. Once the message makes it to Exchange, it can determine which >> server/Site the recipient is in and routes it to the Hub Transport >> server(s) >> in the destination. > > Just one more dilema.. > To provide HA, is it possible to put two HUB's in NLB cluster and inbound > mail flow will be directed to CNAME(IP) of that NLB. > Is it going to work?
"Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: > Why not use multiple MX records instead? > NLB will work, though. Hm...but our hub's are located in LAN, and all mail from internet can be forwarder from firewall to one internal IP located on LAN. So I thought that NLB would be HA solution. I don't understand that with multiple MX records. It makes sence when hubs have internet IP's, right? Correct me if I'm wrong...
You're right - if you have a single IP address available.... you can use NLB and publish the NLB IP address. -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------- "Lehr" wrote in message news:F13B5042-E653-4B2F-94CF-36C2BF652C75@microsoft.com... > "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: > >> Why not use multiple MX records instead? >> NLB will work, though. > > Hm...but our hub's are located in LAN, and all mail from internet can be > forwarder from firewall to one internal IP located on LAN. So I thought > that > NLB would be HA solution. > I don't understand that with multiple MX records. It makes sence when hubs > have internet IP's, right? > > Correct me if I'm wrong...
Hi Bharat! I was under the impression that High Availabillity for Hub Transport Servers, HT, is provided by Active Directory and also if Hub Transport and Client Access Server, CAS, is colocated on the same server and you load balance CAS you should disable NLB for HT (port 25 - SMTP). So, you say I can NLB both CAS and HT? Jesper Bernle | Enterprise Messaging Administrator "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message news:ObMR%23AzbIHA.3812@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > You're right - if you have a single IP address available.... you can use > NLB and publish the NLB IP address. > > -- > Bharat Suneja > MVP - Exchange > www.zenprise.com > NEW blog location: > exchangepedia.com/blog > ---------------------------- > > > > "Lehr" wrote in message > news:F13B5042-E653-4B2F-94CF-36C2BF652C75@microsoft.com... >> "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote: >> >>> Why not use multiple MX records instead? >>> NLB will work, though. >> >> Hm...but our hub's are located in LAN, and all mail from internet can be >> forwarder from firewall to one internal IP located on LAN. So I thought >> that >> NLB would be HA solution. >> I don't understand that with multiple MX records. It makes sence when >> hubs >> have internet IP's, right? >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong... >
The way I look... NLB in this case would be HA option for iternet inbound mail flow when you have no Edge servers, and all incoming mail is forwarded through firewall to one local IP...so to provide HA for hubs, NLB is solution HUB HA for outbound is provided by Active Directory. right? "Bernle Jesper" wrote: > Hi Bharat! > > I was under the impression that High Availabillity for Hub Transport > Servers, HT, is provided by Active Directory and also if Hub Transport and > Client Access Server, CAS, is colocated on the same server and you load > balance CAS you should disable NLB for HT (port 25 - SMTP). > > So, you say I can NLB both CAS and HT? > > Jesper Bernle | Enterprise Messaging Administrator
True - as Lehr stated. You shouldn't use NLB for internal mail delivery - the doc link I posted earlier covers that. As of SP1 (iirc), you can use NLB to load-balance mail delivery as you intend to do. -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------- "Lehr" wrote in message news:ACD22BE3-06F3-4838-8627-0B1A1A5BECE5@microsoft.com... > The way I look... > NLB in this case would be HA option for iternet inbound mail flow when you > have no Edge servers, and all incoming mail is forwarded through firewall > to > one local IP...so to provide HA for hubs, NLB is solution > > HUB HA for outbound is provided by Active Directory. > > right? > > "Bernle Jesper" wrote: > >> Hi Bharat! >> >> I was under the impression that High Availabillity for Hub Transport >> Servers, HT, is provided by Active Directory and also if Hub Transport >> and >> Client Access Server, CAS, is colocated on the same server and you load >> balance CAS you should disable NLB for HT (port 25 - SMTP). >> >> So, you say I can NLB both CAS and HT? >> >> Jesper Bernle | Enterprise Messaging Administrator > >
Okay. Good to know. :-) Jesper Bernle | Enterprise Messaging Administrator "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" wrote in message news:OffEE01bIHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > True - as Lehr stated. You shouldn't use NLB for internal mail delivery - > the doc link I posted earlier covers that. As of SP1 (iirc), you can use > NLB to load-balance mail delivery as you intend to do. > > -- > Bharat Suneja > MVP - Exchange > www.zenprise.com > NEW blog location: > exchangepedia.com/blog > ---------------------------- > > > "Lehr" wrote in message > news:ACD22BE3-06F3-4838-8627-0B1A1A5BECE5@microsoft.com... >> The way I look... >> NLB in this case would be HA option for iternet inbound mail flow when >> you >> have no Edge servers, and all incoming mail is forwarded through firewall >> to >> one local IP...so to provide HA for hubs, NLB is solution >> >> HUB HA for outbound is provided by Active Directory. >> >> right? >> >> "Bernle Jesper" wrote: >> >>> Hi Bharat! >>> >>> I was under the impression that High Availabillity for Hub Transport >>> Servers, HT, is provided by Active Directory and also if Hub Transport >>> and >>> Client Access Server, CAS, is colocated on the same server and you load >>> balance CAS you should disable NLB for HT (port 25 - SMTP). >>> >>> So, you say I can NLB both CAS and HT? >>> >>> Jesper Bernle | Enterprise Messaging Administrator >> >> >
