Will Exchange 15 Require an AD Version Update?

My colleague, or perhaps co-conspirator, Tony Redmond recently wrote an interesting blog post about whether Microsoft should require an Active Directory (AD) upgrade for the next version of Microsoft Exchange Server (which, for brevity's sake, I'll call Exchange 15.)

Tony's basic argument is that the Exchange team is well justified if it chooses to require such an upgrade. He cites the age of Windows 2003 as a reason, along with the fact that removing support from Exchange for the Windows 2003 functional level would simplify the testing burden for the Exchange development team. I can't argue either of these facts: Windows 2003 is, in fact, ancient, and removing support for its version of AD would eliminate some degree of compatibility testing that is now required. However, I disagree with the conclusion that Tony has reached. Here's why.

First, let's consider the typical customer who's running Windows 2003 AD. I think it would be fair to say that, for the most part, these customers are not on the cutting edge of IT. Accordingly, they're exactly the customers that Microsoft is most ardently pursuing for Office 365. Requiring customers to upgrade their internal AD infrastructure in order to migrate to Exchange 15 in Office 365 (or whatever it will be called after the Office 15 wave releases) is directly opposite to Microsoft's best interest.

Compare the choices available to the customer: Upgrade your AD infrastructure and migrate to Microsoft's cloud service (where the AD upgrade brings you minimal benefits, or else you would have done it sometime in the past 10 years) or don't upgrade your infrastructure and migrate to Google's service. That isn't a question Microsoft wants customers asking. Therefore, Microsoft should be working to provide the lowest-friction migration path possible.

It's true that there are some large enterprise customers (hello, US Navy, I am looking at you) who still make heavy use of Windows 2003. Most of these customers have their own upgrade cycles and requirements and are very unlikely to be in the initial wave of movement to Office 15, no matter what Microsoft would like. Requiring, or not requiring, an AD infrastructure upgrade isn't going to sway them one way or the other, so there's no advantage in trying to force them to upgrade their AD in order to deploy Office 15.

Tony's second argument is that eliminating the requirement for backward compatibility will ease the test burden on the Exchange team. Although it's true that eliminating compatibility with Windows 2003 functional level forests would eliminate the requirement for some test coverage, modern testing of large enterprise products such as Exchange is virtually always automated. Eliminating those tests just means running fewer CPU cycles-not a huge savings.

The burden in testing often comes from having to identify and then fix the bugs that you find. Here it's important to understand that the AD access code in Exchange appears to be one of the most mature, best understood, and most robust components of the product; it hasn't undergone the extensive changes that we've seen in, for example, the Information Store or the Client Access server role. Obviously, I'm not privy to the detailed statistics on test requirements and results for Exchange, but I would be willing to bet Tony a steak dinner that the number of flaws found in directory access version-over-version is already very small. That means that any savings realized from eliminating backward compatibility would likewise be very small. These savings from cutting Windows 2003 AD compatibility have to be balanced against the perception that Microsoft is making things easier for itself at the expense of customers-a perception that, once taken root, can be hard to get rid of.

Now let me switch gears and make an argument for keeping compatibility. First off, Microsoft already has a rich reputation for requiring wholesale updates from version to version. It's safe to assume that Exchange 15, like its predecessors, will require us to move mailboxes from one server to another instead of supporting a direct in-place upgrade. That method is perfectly OK; after many hours spent troubleshooting in-place upgrades of various operating systems and applications, I'm happy never to have to deal with that problem again. However, it's fair to argue that the rip-and-replace reputation is something that Microsoft can do without, especially because that perception puts them at a competitive disadvantage against companies such as Google or even IBM Lotus who impose no such requirement.

You might notice that above I began mentioning "Office 15" instead of just focusing on Exchange 15. It's certainly possible that some other Office 15 product will force an AD version upgrade; it's hard for outsiders to tell how closely coordinated the various product teams at Microsoft really are. In this case, it appears that they are working together very closely to produce a unified set of server applications, but we shall see whether that appearance matches reality.

Of course, Microsoft hasn't announced any plans one way or another. In the past, decisions such as the move to an exclusively 64-bit world have been driven by hard data gathered by the engineering, marketing, and customer experience (CXP) teams. I have no reason to think this decision is any different; perception and savings are important factors, but not necessarily the only, or even most important, ones. There are technical issues to consider, too. As Tony points out, Exchange 15 might require a schema update, in which case that update might require a functional level update also. I don't object to that; if there are valid technical reasons why an upgrade is required, then customers get to choose whether they want to accept the burden of an upgrade in exchange for the benefits of moving to Exchange 15. However, if there's no technical reason to require an AD version update, I think Microsoft would only be hurting itself to require one.

The good news is that we should know the answer to this question relatively soon as Microsoft releases more details of Exchange 15. Speaking of which: Early registration for the Microsoft Exchange Conference (MEC) closes May 18. Microsoft is promising to reveal a lot about Exchange 15 there, so I'm sure that by then-or shortly thereafter-we'll know Microsoft's intentions.

Discuss this Article 2

mczepieltpc
on May 16, 2012
Paul, Good article and good throughts. I'd like to add another perspective though. As an AD administrator since 1999, my team has found a number of the Microsoft product teams lacking lately in how they interact with AD. It seems like several groups, Exchange as one of them, do not fully understand AD and don't talk to the AD product group. We are implementing Exchange 2010 now and in order to isolate our bulk mail / spam filtering to dedicated Exchange servers, we had to create another AD site for that (per our onsite Microsoft Exchange rep). Another AD site means more domain controllers which really aren't needed from a volume of work perspective, but Exchange won't work properly otherwise. In this case, Exchange only thought of themselves and not the rest of the infrastructure. We are still working towards completing our upgrade to all Win2008 domain controllers. While my company tries to stay ahead and some of my AD servers were the first servers (in the company) to be on 2008, many of our vendors weren't ready to support the OS and we still have vendors who can't fully support 2008. I'd say so long as the OS is still in extended support by Microsoft, product groups should be testing with it. Mike Czepiel
paulrobichaux
on May 16, 2012
Mike, thanks for that-- it's a perspective I hadn't considered. I suspect the Exchange team wouldn't say that they thought only of themselves; rather, they made the (wise, IMHO) decision to use AD site boundaries for routing instead of maintaining their own artificial boundaries, as they did with routing groups and Exchange 5.5 sites. AD is such a rich source of information that, to me, it makes sense for Exchange to leverage it in any way possible. That's part of the reason I find Lync's decision to move away from AD and towards the CMS so puzzling; I know there are benefits to that architecture but I'm not convinced they outweigh the drawbacks. And your closing note about extended support being the decision point for continued testing rings true to me too. Let's see what happens!

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections Exchange Server

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• Future Deopyments
and Integrations
• Hybrid Deployments
• Exchange Online
• Windows 8 Deployment
and much more!

Come See Tony Redmond & Mark Minasi in Person!

Early Registration Now Open

Current Issue

May 2013 - The NameTranslate object is useful when you need to translate Active Directory object names between different formats, but it's awkward to use from PowerShell. Here's a PowerShell script that eliminates the awkwardness.

CURRENT ISSUE / ARCHIVE / SUBSCRIBE

Windows Forums

Get answers to questions, share tips, and engage with the Windows Community in our Forums.