Upgrading to 2003 AD
Hi, Currently we are running Windows 2000 and Exchange 2000 - I'm about to upgrade the AD to 2003. I've seen a document that specifies that a script has to be run prior to upgrade if Exchange 2000 is present in the AD. Is this stillthe case,it seems a bit strange that MS would require a script to be run on what must be the majority of upgrades Win2000/Ex2000 to 2003? If it is the case has anyone got any good documentation or tips? Thanks
June 7th, 2007 11:13pm

Yes, before running adprep /forestprep & /domainprep you need to run the inetorgpersonfix fix to update the schema to prevent mangled attributes. Below is the KB Article with the details. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314649 HTH and good luck :-)
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
June 8th, 2007 12:16pm

Hi Chris, Thanks for the information. I had a read through the document and it specified two option: 1 Run the Inetorgperson kit 2 Run Exchange 2003 /forestprep. Given that the InetOrgperson kit requires manual entries specifying the root domain (can be a bit fiddly) is there any reason not to go with the Ex03 /forestprep? Thanks
June 8th, 2007 7:16pm

Not reallymaybe project timelines but nothing hard. The problem is Exchange 2000 defines three non-RFC-compliant attributes for the inetOrgPerson object: houseIdentifier, Secretary, and labeledURI. To prevent mangling, the LDAP display names of these attributes must be modified before Windows 2003 schema modifications are performed. You should run the inetOrgPerson kit (inetOrgPersonFix.ldf) first prior to running any of the pre-Windows 2003 requirements if doing the domain first.
Free Windows Admin Tool Kit Click here and download it now
June 8th, 2007 8:05pm

Hi, Can anyone confirm what the situation is with running Exchange Server2003 setup /forestprep prior to running Windows 2003 adprep /forestprep. I was intending to run this as a replacement for the inetOrgperson kit based on the extract from article Q314649. Thisextracts however contradictitself with the following lines: The Exchange Server 2003 setup /forestprep command also adds its InetOrgPerson attributes, and may cause object mangling.You add Exchange 2000 to an existing Windows 2000 forest. You then run the Exchange Server 2003 setup /forestprep command before you run the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command. When the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command adds its InetOrgPerson attributes in a Windows 2000 forest that contains the Exchange 2000 schema, its definitions of the Secretary, the houseIdentifier, and the labeledURI attributes conflict with the Exchange 2000 definitions of these attributes. On the domain controller that receives the Windows Server 2003 schema updates, the LdapDisplayName attributes for the Exchange 2000 definitions of these attributes are modified to prevent a conflict. When the Microsoft Active Directory directory service detects a duplicate name, it modifies the name of one of the objects by adding "Dup" and some unique characters to the beginning of the name. This behavior is known as "object mangling."The Exchange Server 2003 setup /forestprep command also adds its InetOrgPerson attributes, and may cause object mangling.Active Directory forests are not vulnerable to this mangled display name problem if you use the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command to create the initial definition of the Secretary, the labeledURI, and the houseIdentifier attributes. Specifically, mangled LdapDisplayName attributes do not occur in the following scenarios: You run the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command in a Windows 2000 forest before you install Exchange 2000. You add Exchange 2000 to an existing Windows 2000 forest. You run the Inetorgpersonfix.ldf file before you run the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command. You add Exchange 2000 to an existing Windows 2000 forest. You then run the Exchange Server 2003 setup /forestprep command before you run the Windows Server 2003 adprep /forestprep command. Do I need to use the inetOrgperson kit to be safe - just seems a little messy. Thanks
June 15th, 2007 1:52pm

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

Other recent topics Other recent topics