Overlapping boundaries
ok so we've all heard a million times overlapping boundaries are bad, evil, the world will end... What I'm curious about is beyond new clients getting installed or automatic client assignment what are some other potentially bad things that would come of the following scenario. For a few subnets that have SMS and SCCM Clients adding as boundaries for both SMS and SCCM. Mostly because it is a secondary site location and without the boundaries the SCCM Clients don't use the local DP they go back to their assigned site's DP. We are slowly transitioning this area from SMS to SCCM. Which is why we're wondering. Thanks, Terry
August 12th, 2010 11:58pm

Content location is the other big negative with overlapping boundaries. During migrations as you've described above, having overlapping boundaries is "common" and controllable as long as you are expecting and planning for the behavior. If the main DP that you speak of is in its own unique boundary for each site, then you "should" be OK however, it is possible that clients find the DP from the other site. If you're not pushing out content during the transition and control site assignment using a GPO or command-line switches, you can get away with overlapping boundaries during the transition.Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
August 13th, 2010 12:38am

That's what I was thinking pretty much. 2 DPs at Secondary one for SMS and one for SCCM (new infrastructure for SCCM), DPs at Primary Sites as well. Will be pushing SW to both SMS and SCCM clients during transition period. SMS DPs are all PDPs, SCCM DPs aren't (no boundaries yet). MPs should provide list of DPs I would figure at the secondary site for both that it knows about, not sure how a MP would return a DP for the other infrastructure? Thanks, Terry
August 13th, 2010 1:01am

Good point (wasn't thinking about what I was writing); DPs from the other site can't be found, so as long as you're controlling site assignment explicitly, you should be OK.Jason | http://myitforum.com/cs2/blogs/jsandys | http://blogs.catapultsystems.com/jsandys/default.aspx | Twitter @JasonSandys
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
August 13th, 2010 1:58am

We are. Thanks, Terry
August 13th, 2010 2:13am

Hi, I have had problems with clients getting assigned to the correct site in an overlapping boundary scenario. Some clients did assign and others didn't. But if the configuration works for you, then it's cool - but unsupported. Just keep a close eye on the assignment when you migrate the clients.Kent Agerlund | http://scug.dk/members/Agerlund/default.aspx | The Danish community for System Center products
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
August 13th, 2010 7:02am

Yep we are hard coding the site assignment in the command line. And should only be for a short time until the final SMS client in that location is migrated over. Thanks, Terry
August 13th, 2010 6:31pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics