I was wondering it is a normal behavior. Current setup: New SCCM 2007 R2 installation. Only 1 primary site : PRD Defined 2 boundaries: 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x Configured AD system discovery. No SCCM agent have been deployed yet. Behavior: If I look at the All Systems Collection, I see all my windows ressource. All my ressource are showing has ASSIGN to PRD in the console. But I have some servers on the 192.168.9.x that are also showing has ASSIGN in PRD....but the boundary is NOT defined in SCCM. Is that normal? Can a ressource (no agent install) be assign to a site, even if is boundary is not defined in SCCM ?? Regards JP

What are the actual network IDs defined in the two boundaries (what you have above are not network IDs)?Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys

Hi Jason: Here my actual SCCM boundary: Subnet: 172.29.4.0-172.29.5.255 172.29.34.0-172.29.35.255 172.29.40.0-172.29.41.255 172.29.42.0-172.29.43.255 172.29.44.0-172.29.45.255 172.29.46.0-172.29.47.255 And her are my 2 subnet in my branch site: Calgary – 172.29.190.0 -> 172.29.191.255 and 172.29.192.0 -> 172.29.193.255 Toronto – 172.29.214.0 -> 172.29.215.255 and 172.29.216.0 -> 172.29.217.255 thanks for any help Jason REgards JP

anyone ? :-(

Defined 2 boundaries: 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x [...] Here my actual SCCM boundary: Subnet: 172.29.4.0-172.29.5.255 172.29.34.0-172.29.35.255 172.29.40.0-172.29.41.255 172.29.42.0-172.29.43.255 172.29.44.0-172.29.45.255 172.29.46.0-172.29.47.255 Isn't that conflicting information?

The 192.168.1.x and 192.168.2.x were example. These are my real subnet defined in SCCM: 172.29.4.0-172.29.5.255 172.29.34.0-172.29.35.255 172.29.40.0-172.29.41.255 172.29.42.0-172.29.43.255 172.29.44.0-172.29.45.255 172.29.46.0-172.29.47.255 Thanks for any help Regards

If the system was manually assigned it doesn't have to be in a boundary. Boundaries are used for auto-assignment, but do not exclude systems.Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys

Hi Jason, That is exactly my problem. I did not do any manual assigned to any system. The systems are showing ASSIGNED but no SCCM client have been deployed, and the boudaries ARE NOT defined in SCCM. Any thoughts?

If you right-click on one of the questionable assigned resources, what is listed for the IP Address and Network ID?Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys

Hi Jason, IP of the assigned ressource : 172.29.190.13 IP Subnet of the assigned ressource : 172.29.190.0 Regards JP

Are you using subnet boundaries or IP Range boundaries?Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys

HI Jason We are using IP range address. But you agree that this is not a normal behavior right? Thanks for clearing that up. JP EDIT: Here are some example of network info: TO: 172.29.214.* 255.255.254.0 172.29.214.1 Calgary: 172.29.190.* 255.255.254.0 172.29.190.1 Montreal: 172.29.40.* 255.255.254.0 172.29.40.1

Guess I will need to call Microsoft on ths one... Anyone has seen this issue ? Regards JP

SuperNets are not supported. So with that being said. What is subnet mask of your clients /24 or /23? Garth from Ottawa.http://www.enhansoft.com/

SuperNets are not supported ? Is that documented? Subnet is /24 Thanks JP

Yes it is document in several places. In the docs http://technet.microsoft.com/en-ca/library/bb633084.aspx and on the ConfigMgr docs team Blogs http://blogs.technet.com/b/configmgrteam/archive/2009/12/21/known-issue-supernets-in-active-directory-sites-used-as-site-boundaries.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/configurationmgr/archive/2009/05/19/troubleshooting-common-problems-with-site-assignment.aspxhttp://www.enhansoft.com/

As mentionned above, we are using IP range....not IP Sunbet. So the article, does not apply to us. Any other thoughts? Regards