locked
Boundaries Question RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have following this to the letter: http://www.trailingreboot.com/?p=60   I says this in the article.

    Lets assume a hypothetical SCCM 2012 environment of 1 site where I have a head office primary site server and 5 satellite sites with distribution points. Given this scenario I would create a Boundary group called “Company Site Assignment” and add all AD site, and IP subnet/range boundaries. By doing this I am saying that no matter where the client is connecting from they should be assigned to the 1 site.

    For content location I would create a Boundary group for each site including the head office and name them based on location:


    HO Content Boundary Group

    Satellite 1 Content Boundary Group
    Satellite 2 Content Boundary Group
    Satellite 3 Content Boundary Group
    Satellite 4 Content Boundary Group
    Satellite 5 Content Boundary Group


    I would then assign the IP subnet boundary corresponding to each physical location  ONLY to each site. Microsoft documentation will tell you to use the AD site names first but I, and many others in the SCCM community have seen intermittent issues doing this. Using IP subnet boundaries ensures that the clients get content from the correct location.

    Do not combine site assignment and content location boundary groups. Doing so results in the odd issues with deployments that I mentioned at the top of the article. Stick to these simple rules and you will have consistent performance in your ConfigMgr environment.

    What I'm not sure of is the very last paragraph.      In the top paragraph I make bold what I feel contradicts what I have bold in the last paragraph.  Namely:

    I would create a Boundary group called “Company Site Assignment” and add all AD site, and IP subnet/range boundaries
    Do not combine site assignment and content location boundary groups

    Don't those conflict with each other?

    I created a new boundary for each remote site and for each floor in our main building.   35 subnets in all.   I then created new boundary groups.  I added 1 (sometimes 2) boundaries to each Group and 1 (sometimes 2) content DPs.   

    I created 1 SITE ASSIGNMENT boundary group and I added ALL subnets. 

    Did I set it up right?  It seems to work but I wanted to ask this forum.


    mqh7

    Friday, March 11, 2016 6:10 PM

Answers

  • No, there's no conflict. One boundary group is for one purpose and then other boundary groups are for another. This basically lays out the strategy I also advocate. Of course, I *never* use subnet boundaries though, only IP Range boundaries.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys

    • Proposed as answer by Frank Dong Thursday, March 24, 2016 10:57 AM
    • Marked as answer by Frank Dong Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:32 PM
    Saturday, March 12, 2016 2:02 PM

All replies

  • No, there's no conflict. One boundary group is for one purpose and then other boundary groups are for another. This basically lays out the strategy I also advocate. Of course, I *never* use subnet boundaries though, only IP Range boundaries.

    Jason | http://blog.configmgrftw.com | @jasonsandys

    • Proposed as answer by Frank Dong Thursday, March 24, 2016 10:57 AM
    • Marked as answer by Frank Dong Saturday, March 26, 2016 1:32 PM
    Saturday, March 12, 2016 2:02 PM
  • Dear Sir,

    Concur with Jason.

    Using IP ranges for boundaries instead of using IP Subnets.

    Best regards

    Frank


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Subscriber Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com

    Monday, March 14, 2016 2:56 AM