I have acquired a 2010/2003 environment due to staffing changes. We have a CAS/HT box and a mailbox server currently. We are adding a remote office and would like to give them mailbox functionality. My question is do I need BOTH a CAS and a HUB TRANSPORT at the remote location or could I just use a CAS role and have my corporate location as the HT? I'm still getting ramped up on Exchange 2010 so any suggestions or feedback is greatly appreciated. JoT

Yes, you need to have HUB and CAS server on the remote site. So that you don't have to face latency in connectivity. Are you going to have Mailbox Server on the second site? Gulab | MCITP: Exchange 2010-2007 | Skype: Gulab.Mallah | Blog: www.ExchangeRanger.Blogspot.com

I have acquired a 2010/2003 environment due to staffing changes. We have a CAS/HT box and a mailbox server currently. We are adding a remote office and would like to give them mailbox functionality. My question is do I need BOTH a CAS and a HUB TRANSPORT at the remote location or could I just use a CAS role and have my corporate location as the HT? I'm still getting ramped up on Exchange 2010 so any suggestions or feedback is greatly appreciated. JoT If the connection from your remote office to the HQ is good then you could just use the HQ and just provide users at remote office with Outlook. If there's not WAN link, then you could use OA (HTTP/RPC). If you prefer to have a local mbx server, then you have to have a CAS and HUB local too. (I assume the remote office is a seperate AD site). Sukh

The remote site has a slower WAN link so the intent is to have a local mailbox server there (remote site) and connect back to HQ. I just wasn't certain if BOTH CAS and HUB TRANSPORT were needed. Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I appreciate it! JoT

Hi JoT, More information, please read: Planning to Use Active Directory Sites for Routing Mail http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996299.aspx Frank Wang