Server 2000 Licensing Question

[Guest MikeK]

I have an old 2000 Citrix farm that I am supporting. It should be

replaced with all new hardware and 2008 server within the next 6

months or so, but that's all tied up in budget. So we have to keep it

running. (it could more than a year before the budge gets approved,

so we can't depend on it)

 

However, The DC that is running the License service is dying.

 

Environment is 100% XP clients, all are on the same LAN. 10 Terminal

Servers, 3 DC's

Existing License Server has:

25 Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access License (Type OPEN)

(10 are issued dating from 2006, up till last week)

450 Builtin In (the main bulk of our users)

14 Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access License

 

We've built a new DC, that is running 2000. Installed the License

Server software. We set the license server perference on one of the

TS to the new DC. (Call it NewLS)

 

We DO NOT have the orignal paper work on the 25 TSCAL. So for all

intents and purposes, they're gone.

 

We login with a Test machine (TestA), and NewLS issues a Built-in

License. Success!

 

We figure at this point, we should be fine, since the Built-in

licenses should carry us till we can push the upgrade thru.

 

We let it run over night, to make sure we aren't opening a can of

worms, and when we check the morning, it get's confusing.

 

A workstation (ClientA) has a Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal Services

Client Access License issued to it. ClientA is a XP Pro SP3 machine.

 

Checking the old license server, ClientA has a TSCAL issued to it.

 

Should we be concerned? Obviously something wierd is afoot, but the

environment was not well taken care of before hand.

[Guest Vera Noest [MVP]]

Re: Server 2000 Licensing Question

 

Try to connect a second time with the same ClientA.

On first connection, clients receive a temporary license. On second

connection, this is replaced by a permanent license, which in this

case should come from the built-in pool of "Existing Windows 2000

TS CALs".

 

_________________________________________________________

Vera Noest

MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net

___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___

 

MikeK <Michael.P.King@gmail.com> wrote on 02 okt 2008 in

microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> I have an old 2000 Citrix farm that I am supporting. It should

> be replaced with all new hardware and 2008 server within the

> next 6 months or so, but that's all tied up in budget. So we

> have to keep it running. (it could more than a year before the

> budge gets approved, so we can't depend on it)

>

> However, The DC that is running the License service is dying.

>

> Environment is 100% XP clients, all are on the same LAN. 10

> Terminal Servers, 3 DC's

> Existing License Server has:

> 25 Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access License (Type

> OPEN) (10 are issued dating from 2006, up till last week)

> 450 Builtin In (the main bulk of our users)

> 14 Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access

> License

>

> We've built a new DC, that is running 2000. Installed the

> License Server software. We set the license server perference

> on one of the TS to the new DC. (Call it NewLS)

>

> We DO NOT have the orignal paper work on the 25 TSCAL. So for

> all intents and purposes, they're gone.

>

> We login with a Test machine (TestA), and NewLS issues a

> Built-in License. Success!

>

> We figure at this point, we should be fine, since the Built-in

> licenses should carry us till we can push the upgrade thru.

>

> We let it run over night, to make sure we aren't opening a can

> of worms, and when we check the morning, it get's confusing.

>

> A workstation (ClientA) has a Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal

> Services Client Access License issued to it. ClientA is a XP

> Pro SP3 machine.

>

> Checking the old license server, ClientA has a TSCAL issued to

> it.

>

> Should we be concerned? Obviously something wierd is afoot, but

> the environment was not well taken care of before hand.

[Guest MikeK]

Re: Server 2000 Licensing Question

 

On Oct 2, 2:18 pm, "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.no...@remove-

this.hem.utfors.se> wrote:

> Try to connect a second time with the same ClientA.

> On first connection, clients receive a temporary license. On second

> connection, this is replaced by a permanent license, which in this

> case should come from the built-in pool of "Existing Windows 2000

> TS CALs".

 

Thanks Vera.

 

I was hoping this might be the case. My only concern is that when I

checked the old licensing server, it has a TSCAL, not a built-in

license. I can't for the life of me understand why a XP SP3 machine

would have a TSCAL and not a built-in license in Server 2000

 

Mike

[Guest Hank Arnold (MVP)]

Re: Server 2000 Licensing Question

 

MikeK wrote:

> I have an old 2000 Citrix farm that I am supporting. It should be

> replaced with all new hardware and 2008 server within the next 6

> months or so, but that's all tied up in budget. So we have to keep it

> running. (it could more than a year before the budge gets approved,

> so we can't depend on it)

>

> However, The DC that is running the License service is dying.

>

> Environment is 100% XP clients, all are on the same LAN. 10 Terminal

> Servers, 3 DC's

> Existing License Server has:

> 25 Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access License (Type OPEN)

> (10 are issued dating from 2006, up till last week)

> 450 Builtin In (the main bulk of our users)

> 14 Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal Services Client Access License

>

> We've built a new DC, that is running 2000. Installed the License

> Server software. We set the license server perference on one of the

> TS to the new DC. (Call it NewLS)

>

> We DO NOT have the orignal paper work on the 25 TSCAL. So for all

> intents and purposes, they're gone.

>

> We login with a Test machine (TestA), and NewLS issues a Built-in

> License. Success!

>

> We figure at this point, we should be fine, since the Built-in

> licenses should carry us till we can push the upgrade thru.

>

> We let it run over night, to make sure we aren't opening a can of

> worms, and when we check the morning, it get's confusing.

>

> A workstation (ClientA) has a Temporary Windows 2000 Terminal Services

> Client Access License issued to it. ClientA is a XP Pro SP3 machine.

>

> Checking the old license server, ClientA has a TSCAL issued to it.

>

> Should we be concerned? Obviously something wierd is afoot, but the

> environment was not well taken care of before hand.

 

AFAIK, TS2000 should provide free licenses to XP machines (and W2K).

There's no need for TSCALS...

 

--

 

Regards,

Hank Arnold

Microsoft MVP

Windows Server - Directory Services

[Guest Vera Noest [MVP]]

Re: Server 2000 Licensing Question

 

MikeK <Michael.P.King@gmail.com> wrote on 02 okt 2008 in

microsoft.public.windows.terminal_services:

> On Oct 2, 2:18 pm, "Vera Noest [MVP]" <vera.no...@remove-

> this.hem.utfors.se> wrote:

>> Try to connect a second time with the same ClientA.

>> On first connection, clients receive a temporary license. On

>> second connection, this is replaced by a permanent license,

>> which in this case should come from the built-in pool of

>> "Existing Windows 2000 TS CALs".

>

> Thanks Vera.

>

> I was hoping this might be the case. My only concern is that

> when I checked the old licensing server, it has a TSCAL, not a

> built-in license. I can't for the life of me understand why a

> XP SP3 machine would have a TSCAL and not a built-in license in

> Server 2000

>

> Mike

 

Yes, I agree that this shouldn't have happended on the old server.

Unles the client runs XP Home edition?

I'd try the second connection anyway and monitor what happens. If

the problem was on the old LS, you might just be lucky and get a

correct (= built-in) TS CAL from the new LS.

_________________________________________________________

Vera Noest

MCSE, CCEA, Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

TS troubleshooting: http://ts.veranoest.net

___ please respond in newsgroup, NOT by private email ___