I have a bit of a strange issue. I'm "fairly" new to this organization and being the Exchange Administrator so I don't know how or who set things up. That said, I have 6 Admin groups, and within each various routing groups. These Admin groups are set up geographically so the Australia office's servers are in the AUS Admin Group and those in the US in US Group. All the servers in the US Admin group show up as expected in each routing group as member, and this is the same with all the other Admin groups, where all servers are listed as routing group members. This is not to say they are all set as bridgeheads, rather those are set specifically (the US we have two specifically set and Bridgeheads only - no mailboxes). Also in the US and other Admin groups, there are limited number of routing groups which is also normal, with routes between each Admin group in a sort of Hub and spoke layout, and the US is the HUB. The exception to this, is our AUS admin group, which has 10 servers, and routing groups for each server within that Admin group. I would expect only routing groups to the other Admin groups, and the SMTP routing group for Internet mail. The problem I have is when I wish to change these to an identified bridgehead, it's not listed as an option, and infact in each of these routing groups, only the local server is selected and only it is the option. My first thought is there really doesn't need to be ANY of these routing groups, rather simply using the default for that Admin group. But it's the way I found it and to make things simple, I am being asked to set two servers in a central location as bridgehead for all these routing groups, and they simply are not an option. When I look at the members on each routing group, as I said only the one local server is listed. I sense someone has "Tinkered" but am not sure how to overcome the fact I can't simply add the bridgeheads even for testing before making permanent. I'm running EXBPA now, and maybe it will show me something I have missed from previous runnings. Any Ideas? Thanks!

As an update, I ran Best practices and it yielded nothing. I'm really struggling as to how the servers in the entire Admin group could be sectioned off from being members of a routing group. I also am researching to see if some "sites and services" setting may be over riding this. But I really would appreciate input :) Thanks!

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:29:51 +0000, SG_Dan wrote: >I have a bit of a strange issue. I'm "fairly" new to this organization and being the Exchange Administrator so I don't know how or who set things up. That said, I have 6 Admin groups, and within each various routing groups. That's usually the other way around, with routing groups being part of an administrative group. >These Admin groups are set up geographically so the Australia office's servers are in the AUS Admin Group and those in the US in US Group. >All the servers in the US Admin group show up as expected in each routing group as member, Each routing group? A server should appear in only one routing group. By default they're placed in the routing group within the administrative group of which they're a member. >and this is the same with all the other Admin groups, where all servers are listed as routing group members. This is not to say they are all set as bridgeheads, rather those are set specifically (the US we have two specifically set and Bridgeheads only - no mailboxes). That's okay. >Also in the US and other Admin groups, there are limited number of routing groups which is also normal, with routes between each Admin group in a sort of Hub and spoke layout, and the US is the HUB. There should only be ONE routing group in an administrative group. There may be multiple routing group CONNECTORS, though. >The exception to this, is our AUS admin group, which has 10 servers, and routing groups for each server within that Admin group. Do you mean routing group CONNECTORS, or routing groups? >I would expect only routing groups to the other Admin groups, and the SMTP routing group for Internet mail. You may find multiple routing group connectors within a routing group, but there should be only one routing group in each administrative group. >The problem I have is when I wish to change these to an identified bridgehead, it's not listed as an option, and infact in each of these routing groups, only the local server is selected and only it is the option. If there's only one server in a routing group that's all you can select as a bridgehead. >My first thought is there really doesn't need to be ANY of these routing groups, rather simply using the default for that Admin group. That's correct. >But it's the way I found it That doesn't mean it's right. :-) >and to make things simple, I am being asked to set two servers in a central location as bridgehead for all these routing groups, and they simply are not an option. Two bridgeheads for each location? And each location is within the same administrative group, and there's one routing group within the administrative group . . . and there are multiple servers in each routing group? Go for it! >When I look at the members on each routing group, as I said only the one local server is listed. Then someone's got the wrong idea about routing groups. :-) >I sense someone has "Tinkered" but am not sure how to overcome the fact I can't simply add the bridgeheads even for testing before making permanent. The default is to have a routing group per administrative group. If you have multiple routing groups in the same administrative group then, yeah, someones gone off the reservation. >I'm running EXBPA now, and maybe it will show me something I have missed from previous runnings. Probably not. >Any Ideas? If those ten servers in Australia are all "well connected" (and for simplicity's sake, let's assume they are) you can move them all into one routing group. Then select the ones you want to act as the RGC bridgehead servers to the US RGC. You can remove the superflouous RGCs before you move the servers. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

Rich, First of all thank you for replying! And Im sorry if this all seems confusing and understand your asking about if I mean connectors and not RGs. But I do mean routing groups. I have a total of 9 routing groups for this Admin group, and within those groups, I have 41 connectors! So clearly someone DID go off on the deep end, but I think I have an idea with your information here, that what I need to do is to remove all these routing groups, and create one (which is as it should be) then create the connectors needed to route to the other Administrative groups connectors. I am just a bit confused as to why I was not able to change the bridgeheads to another server, but possibly this confusion of RGs and connectors has somehow limited my ability to adjust like that. So you mention well connected servers and moving them to a single routing group. How does one move a server into a routing group? Not to sound ignorant, but I believe by removing the other RG and connectors, all the servers (in this Admin group) should show up in the single groups members section, correct? And from there I can set one as Master. The only other worry I have is during the period I have removed the Nest of RGs and creating the new one, will that generate NDRs because there is no longer a route? I plan to do this during an off hour period, however they are on opposite sides of the world so I anticipate some of that taking place. Thanks again Rich!

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:54:46 +0000, SG_Dan wrote: >And Im sorry if this all seems confusing and understand your asking about if I mean connectors and not RGs. But I do mean routing groups. I have a total of 9 routing groups for this Admin group, and within those groups, I have 41 connectors! So clearly someone DID go off on the deep end, but I think I have an idea with your information here, that what I need to do is to remove all these routing groups, and create one (which is as it should be) then create the connectors needed to route to the other Administrative groups connectors. While you can have multiple routing groups within an administrative group, to have that many with so many routing group connectors makes it seem as if someone was trying to create a "complete mesh" network -- something that would have "just happened" if they'd put all the servers into a single routing group an let the servers talk to each other. >I am just a bit confused as to why I was not able to change the bridgeheads to another server, but possibly this confusion of RGs and connectors has somehow limited my ability to adjust like that. Was there more than one server in the routing group? If not, there's no other servers to select. >So you mention well connected servers and moving them to a single routing group. How does one move a server into a routing group? You use the good ol' drag-and-drop. :-) >Not to sound ignorant, but I believe by removing the other RG and connectors, all the servers (in this Admin group) should show up in the single groups members section, correct? They would if you move them there. >And from there I can set one as Master. Yes. There can be only one "master" in a routing group. >The only other worry I have is during the period I have removed the Nest of RGs and creating the new one, will that generate NDRs because there is no longer a route? Possibly. The safe way to do this is to stop the SMTP service on the machines until you're finished. Messages will be enqueued on the machines until the service is restarted. Restart the SMTP service on the bridgehead servers first. You might want to make this change on the machines before you restart the SMTP service, just to avoid messages getting "stuck" in delivery queues: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/279616 >I plan to do this during an off hour period, however they are on opposite sides of the world so I anticipate some of that taking place. When you do this, be very cautious. Make sure the changes you make are seen by all the servers -- which means the AD replication is going to have to be forced if you don't want to wait for the normal inter-site replication intervals. If you move too quickly you'll create a problem with stale routes. Fixing that problem used to require shutting down ALL the servers to purge the routing information (it's kept in memory). If even one server had a copy of the stale routes it will communicate that information to every server. It's something I had to do with 120 servers spread over world (including Australia). --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP