Issues with moving LanMan 2.2 (PW v5) to AD?

[Dave Gudewicz]

Anyone here have experience / issues with moving a Pathworks v5 server to an Active Directory (aka newer domain) environment?

On paper, I don't see a problem, but having never actually done a move such as this, there could be some unforseen gotchas.

I have a VAX that's been happily living in an NT domain for years. That domain is going bye-bye soon, thus the move to the newer environment.

[Antoniov.]

Dave,
no direct experience, but I never migrated pathwork server without problem :-(

AFAIK AD need crypted message blocks (LanMan 3.0, kerberos) so you need advanced server V7.3 to work within AD.

Antonio Vigliotti

[Dave Gudewicz]

Found an Understanding Active Directory Services book from our friends at Microsoft and it mentions on several occasions that Windows 2000 AD is backward compatible with older LanMan technology. No mention of exact versions or other details given.

I'll dig around Technet and google for more info. and post what I learn here.

[Dave Gudewicz]

Can anyone confirm this?

Saw a brief reference while googling for Lan Manager 2.2 info that W2K does not support this version of LanMan.

I then went to Microsoft.com and tried to verify this. Couldn't find anything there, but could easily have missed or not known where to find this information. Broad searches in the W2K sections came up empty with regards to LanMan version compatibility.

I'll keep looking.....

[Martin P.J. Zinser]

Hello Dave,

what "role" does your VAX play in the NT domain? While I mostly watch Pathworks from the sidelines as a user I am fairly certain that you can not have a PW server as a domain controller with W2k (any version of PW/AS).

Greetings, Martin

[Dave Gudewicz]

Martin,

The VAX will be a member server in the new domain. It currently is a standalone server. Enabling the NETLOGON service and adding the new domain name in LANMAN.INI should be all that is needed to make this switch. Should be.

Dave...

[Antoniov.]

Dave,
your vax could be work if:
- It will became a member of domain;
- AD works as native mode;
- Your vax has Kerberos installed.

Antonio Vigliotti

[Brad McCusker · Accepted solution]

Dave -

If your V5 server is standalone now, why not leave it that way? If it is standalone now, why do you say it has "been happily living in an NT domain"?

OK, I'll bet it really isn't stand alone. Or, are you saying clinets in an NT 4 domain can access your V5 server?

Bottom line, to the best of my knowledge, PW-V5 can not participate at the domain level with Win2K. Just can't do it, Microsoft will not let the LanMan 2 servers play.

Win2K clients can indeed access PW-V5 resources - although it is unsupported. There are some patches that you will need to get from CSC to make it work correctly. If Microsoft changes something next week, there is no promise from HP to keep things working.

My suggestion is to make the V5 server standalone, and let the Win2K PCs access it.

Brad

[Brad McCusker]

Martin wrote:

>I am fairly certain that you can not
>have a PW server as a domain controller
>with W2k (any version of PW/AS).

Correct. Advanced Server and PW V6.1 can be Member Servers in the Win2K domains. they can not be Domain Controllers.

[Dave Gudewicz]

Brad wrote:

>If your V5 server is standalone now, why >not leave it that way? If it is standalone >now, why do you say it has "been happily >living in an NT domain"?

From its LANMAN.INI

[workstation]
Domain=(name not important)

Its my understanding that standalone servers and W2K domains don't mix well. Therefore the change from standalone to the member server role. Perhaps I didn't explain this as well as I should have.

>OK, I'll bet it really isn't stand alone. >Or, are you saying clinets in an NT 4 >domain can access your V5 server?

I'd bet it is standalone. Has its own LanMan security database, clients need to logon with credentials located on this server Vs their domain credentials.

All this is moot now.

Show stopper is what you say Brad, v2.2 LanMan servers are a no-no in a W2K domain. So be it.