Menu
Modern Workplace Blog
  • Home
  • About: Kenneth van Surksum
  • Cookie Policy
Modern Workplace Blog
July 4, 2012November 23, 2012

ConfigMgr client automatic site assignment behavior in a multi site environment

 

I’m currently working on a project where we implement a new ConfigMgr 2012 hierarchy in a forest where several ConfigMgr 2007 hierarchies already exist. The new ConfigMgr 2012 environment will be installed in a new domain within that existing Forest and we will not migrate any content from these ConfigMgr 2007 environments, but install every client using the OSD functionality of ConfigMgr 2012, but other deployment methods could be necessary for special scenario’s.

Even though this isn’t such a common scenario, I think the results of the test provide some insight on what you can expect in your own migration from ConfigMgr 2007 to ConfigMgr 2012, therefore I decided to share my findings. I hope it will be useful for someone reading this article.

Because one of the requirements for the implementation of ConfigMgr 2012 is that the impact on the existing environment should be as minimal as possible we did some test on what would happen if a ConfigMgr 2007 client would assign itself to a ConfigMgr 2012 environment and possible ways to prevent that.

    • Install a ConfigMgr 2007 client when conflicting boundaries are configured on both ConfigMgr 2007 and ConfigMgr 2012
    • Install a ConfigMgr 2007 client when there is only a boundary group with corresponding boundary defined in ConfigMgr 2012
    • Install a ConfigMgr 2007 client and see what happens when it assigns to the ConfigMgr 2012 site and automatic client upgrade is turned on
    • Install a ConfigMgr 2007 client and see what happens if only a boundary for Content Location in ConfigMgr 2012 is defined.

First there are some known and documented rules which we need to take into account:

A ConfigMgr 2012 client cannot attach itself to a ConfigMgr 2007 site. During Automatic Site Assignment, the ConfigMgr 2012 client will do a version check and when the site it tries to attach to isn’t at the correct level, it will fail to assign to that site.

In order to test the scenario’s, we build the following test environment

ConfigMgr 2007 Primary Site (pss1.nl.domain.local) in the NL child domain, with code N01

ConfigMgr 2012 Primary site (pss2.emea.domain.local) in the EMEA child domain, with site code E01

 

Test 1:Conflicting boundaries configured on both the ConfigMgr 2007 as the ConfigMgr 2012 site

  • Configured an IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2007 site
  • Configured an IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2012 site, and created a boundary group containing this boundary serving as a boundary group for both site assignment and content location
  • Installed Windows 7 from its original ISO file in a VM
  • Joined the Windows 7 client to the NL domain
  • Started CCMSetup.exe from the \\<site server>\SMS_N01\Client folder.

Automatic Site Assignment process

LocationServices.log

<![LOG[A Fallback Status Point has not been specified.  Message with STATEID=’500′ will not be sent.]LOG]!><time=”13:51:54.708+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”fspclientdeployassign.cpp:53″>

<![LOG[Current AD site of machine is ADAM]LOG]!><time=”13:51:54.708+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:457″>

<![LOG[This client might be within the boundaries of more than one site – AD SiteCode search matched 2 entries]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.130+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”2″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:1915″>

<![LOG[The client will be assigned to the first valid site]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.130+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:1916″>

<![LOG[LSGetAssignedSiteFromAD : Trying to Assign to the Site <N01>]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.130+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:1922″>

<![LOG[LSVerifySiteVersion : Verifying Site Version for <N01>]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.130+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:5321″>

<![LOG[LSGetSiteVersionFromAD : Successfully retrieved version ‘4.00.6487.0000’ for site ‘N01’]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.145+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:5129″>

<![LOG[LSVerifySiteVersion : Verified Client Version ‘4.00.6487.2000’ is not greater than Site Version ‘4.00.6487.0000’. Client can be assigned to site <N01>.]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.145+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:5452″>

<![LOG[Current assigned site code for the client is ‘N01’]LOG]!><time=”13:51:55.176+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2064″ file=”lsad.cpp:3589″>

 

Results:

Even though the AD lookup returns 2 possible sites, the client assigns to the N01 site.

Automatic Site Assignment from the Control Panel fails.

 

New Questions based on this result are:

1.Does it assign to the N01 site, because that site is member of the NL domain as well (meaning, the computer account for the PSS for Site 1 resided in the NL domain)?

2.Does it assign to the N01 site, because maybe that’s the last site being returned from the Query (N01 is the last in the array)?

3. What happens if a ConfigMgr 2007 client gets assigned, and we turn on automatic client upgrade.

 

We repeated this scenario for another time, to see whether the N01 site code match was random, but the client assigned to the N01 site again. This does say nothing though, because we need to conduct several similar test to be really sure. But for now are guess is that probably N01 is the last site returned from the query, and which will be used.

We also repeated this scenario, but instead of joining the client to the NL domain we joined the client to the EMEA domain. Same behavior though, the client still auto assigned to the NL1 site.

 

Test 2:Boundary configured on ConfigMgr 2012 site only

  • Removed the IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2007 site
  • Configured an IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2012 site, and created a boundary group containing this boundary serving as a boundary group for both site assignment and content location
  • Installed Windows 7 from its original ISO file in a VM
  • Joined the Windows 7 client to the NL domain
  • Started CCMSetup.exe from the \\<site server>\SMS_N01\Client folder.

Automatic Site Assignment process:

LocationServices.log

<![LOG[A Fallback Status Point has not been specified.  Message with STATEID=’500′ will not be sent.]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.034+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”fspclientdeployassign.cpp:53″>

<![LOG[Current AD site of machine is ADAM]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.034+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:457″>

<![LOG[LSGetAssignedSiteFromAD : Trying to Assign to the Site <E01>]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.440+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:1922″>

<![LOG[LSVerifySiteVersion : Verifying Site Version for <E01>]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.440+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:5321″>

<![LOG[LSGetSiteVersionFromAD : Successfully retrieved version ‘5.00.7711.0000’ for site ‘E01’]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.456+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:5129″>

<![LOG[LSVerifySiteVersion : Verified Client Version ‘4.00.6487.2000’ is not greater than Site Version ‘5.00.7711.0000’. Client can be assigned to site <E01>.]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.456+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:5452″>

<![LOG[Current assigned site code for the client is ‘E01’]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.487+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:3589″>

<![LOG[A Fallback Status Point has not been specified.  Message with STATEID=’700′ will not be sent.]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.487+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”fspclientdeployassign.cpp:53″>

<![LOG[Attempting to retrieve default management point from AD]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.487+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:2537″>

<![LOG[Retrieved Default Management Point from AD: PSS2.EMEA.DOMAIN.LOCAL]LOG]!><time=”15:03:56.487+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2292″ file=”lsad.cpp:2543″>

Result:

The ConfigMgr 2007 client can assign successfully to the ConfigMgr 2012 site. After a while the Actions Tab of the ConfigMgr 2007 client gets filled with all the available actions, and we see that HW inventory is working for example because the Resource Explorer returns the version of the ConfigMgr 2007 client. Even a optional deployment to the computer of a Package turns up in the Run Advertised Programs control panel applet on the ConfigMgr 2007 client.

 

image

image

We do see though, that there are a lot of logs with faults, like the policyevaluator.log:

<![LOG[Failed to update policy CCM_Policy_Policy4.PolicyID=”{542af439-2433-4bcc-987a-af641d17a67b}”,PolicySource=”SMS:E01″,PolicyVersion=”3.00″]LOG]!><time=”15:34:57.665+-120″ date=”06-26-2012″ component=”PolicyAgent_PolicyEvaluator” context=”” type=”3″ thread=”1464″ file=”policyutil.cpp:6852″>

 

Test 3:Automatic Client Upgrade options turned on.

New in ConfigMgr 2012 is the option to automatically upgrade a client which is below a certain defined version. In the RTM version this is every client with a version lower than 5.0.7711.0. Peter Daalmans, a ConfigMgr MVP has described its functionality in a blogpost which can be found here: http://www.systemcenterblog.nl/2012/02/22/configuration-manager-2012-client-upgrade-settings/

 

Microsoft doesn’t recommend this method as your primary method to install your ConfigMgr 2012 clients though, please keep this in mind. Prefer to use any other available method. You can use this method though in certain special scenario’s. Further I hope that MS is going to make this method standard so we can centrally configure client upgrade after a patch is made available for example. Just like we do in SCOM.

  • Removed the IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2007 site
  • Configured an IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2012 site, and created a boundary group containing this boundary serving as a boundary group for both site assignment and content location
  • Installed Windows 7 from its original ISO file in a VM
  • Joined the Windows 7 client to the NL domain
  • Started CCMSetup.exe from the \\<site server>\SMS_N01\Client folder.
  • Turned on Automatic Client Upgrade in the ConfigMgr 2012 Hierarchy settings.

image

Result:

We see the same behavior as in Test 2, only after a while we see in the task manager that a new CCMSetup.exe is started, which uninstalls the ConfigMgr 2007 client, and installs the ConfigMgr 2012 client. We don’t see any Automatic Site Assignment taking place though, which means that the ConfigMgr 2012 client uses the settings of the previously installed ConfigMgr 2007 client.

 

Testscenario 4:No sites defined for client assignment.

  • Removed the IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2007 site
  • Configured an IP range boundary on the ConfigMgr 2012 site, and modified the boundary group containing this boundary serving as a boundary group for only content location
  • Installed Windows 7 from its original ISO file in a VM
  • Joined the Windows 7 client to the NL domain
  • Started CCMSetup.exe from the \\<site server>\SMS_NL\Client folder.
  • Turned on Automatic Client Upgrade in the ConfigMgr 2012 Hierarchy settings.

 

Locationservices.log

<![LOG[A Fallback Status Point has not been specified. Message with STATEID=’500′ will not be sent.]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.299+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”fspclientdeployassign.cpp:53″>

<![LOG[Current AD site of machine is ADAM]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.299+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”lsad.cpp:457″>

<![LOG[Attempting to retrieve SLPs from AD]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.377+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”lsad.cpp:2261″>

<![LOG[Retrieved SLPs from AD]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.705+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”lsad.cpp:2265″>

<![LOG[Current AD site of machine is ADAM]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.721+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”lsad.cpp:457″>

<![LOG[Raising event:

instance of CCM_CcmHttp_Status

{

DateTime = “20120627120915.830000+000”;

HostName = “PSS1”;

HRESULT = “0x00000000”;

ProcessID = 2712;

StatusCode = 0;

ThreadID = 2684;

};

]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.830+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”1″ thread=”2684″ file=”event.cpp:525″>

<![LOG[LSGetAssignedSiteFromSLP : No site code returned from SLP]LOG]!><time=”14:09:15.846+-120″ date=”06-27-2012″ component=”LocationServices” context=”” type=”3″ thread=”2684″ file=”lsad.cpp:2076″>

 

Results:

Client fails to assign successfully to a ConfigMgr site, which means that it is unmanaged and is expected behavior

Overall Conclusion:

When you have a similar situation, and currently you use automatic site assignment for your ConfigMgr 2007 environment, you have some challenges to overcome when you configure conflicting boundaries for your ConfigMgr 2012 clients. This is a common scenario issue which you need to overcome when migrating clients, especially while the two systems are active on the same time for a while.

If automatic site assignment is used, you need to have insight in the boundaries used, and determine if a client can possibly assign itself to the ConfigMgr 2012 environment when overlapping boundaries are present. If that is the case, you can’t use automatic site assignment on one of the sites. In our case this wasn’t a problem since we would use OSD to install the ConfigMgr client and therefore will not use Automatic Site Assignment by specifying a boundary group enabled for this.

Site assignment during OSD works a little bit different. Below is how assignment works in the ConfigMgr 2007 Setup Windows and ConfigMgr Task Sequence Step.

Source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb693951.aspx

The client should automatically be assigned to a site by the Config Windows and ConfigMgr action.  We do not allow you to specify what site the client joins because it needs to join a specific site for the task sequence to complete successfully:

1.       If the task sequence is started from the Full OS on an existing client then the site assignment will be migrated
2.       If the task sequence is started from PXE it will be assigned to the PXE server’s site
3.       If the task sequence is started from media it will be assigned to the site the media was created on.

At time of writing the expected behavior for ConfigMgr 2012 clients isn’t documented yet. But we can expect this to work similar to ConfigMgr 2007. Except for option 3, since we now have 2 media options, one specific for a site, and one media which is hierarchy wide. I would expect this information to show up here:  http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh846237.aspx

Microsoft has the following statement about this scenario, as stated in the Supported Configurations (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg682077#BKMK_SupConfigSiteAssignment)

To prevent Configuration Manager 2007 clients from unintentionally assigning to a System Center 2012 Configuration Manager site when the two hierarchies have overlapping boundaries, configure Configuration Manager 2007 client installation parameters to assign clients to a specific site.

Tweet
Follow me
Tweet #WPNinjasNL

Continue Reading

Now available: System Center 2012 Configuration Manager Unleashed →

3 thoughts on “ConfigMgr client automatic site assignment behavior in a multi site environment”

  1. Pingback: #SCCM / #ConfigMgr 2007 to 2012 :: Migration Reference Guide « Anoop's
  2. Pingback: [recovery mode] Миграция SCCM 2007 до SCCM 2012 - itfm.pro
  3. Pingback: Миграция SCCM 2007 до SCCM 2012 | Identity Clouds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Founding member of:

Recent Posts

  • MAM vs. MDM: Choosing the Right Mobile Management Approach
  • Comparing Web Filtering and Security: Microsoft Entra Internet Access (Global Secure Access) vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE)
  • Navigating New Authentication Methods: SMS for Password Reset, Not for MFA
  • From SPF to DANE: Securing Microsoft 365 Email Communications
  • Protecting your Break Glass accounts in Entra now that MFA gets enforced on more and more Admin portals

Books

System Center 2012 Service Manager Unleashed
Amazon
System Center 2012 R2 Configuration Manager Unleashed: Supplement to System Center 2012 Configuration Manager
Amazon
System Center Configuration Manager Current Branch Unleashed
Amazon
Mastering Windows 7 Deployment
Amazon
System Center 2012 Configuration Manager (SCCM) Unleashed
Amazon

Archives

  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • September 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • February 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • May 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • November 2016
  • November 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • November 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • August 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Categories

  • ABM (4)
  • Advanced Threat Protection (4)
  • Announcement (44)
  • Azure (3)
  • AzureAD (73)
  • Certification (2)
  • Cloud App Security (5)
  • Conditional Access (58)
  • Configuration Manager (24)
  • Entra (2)
  • Entra Id (8)
  • Events (14)
  • Exchange Online (9)
  • Identity Protection (5)
  • Intune (27)
  • Licensing (2)
  • Microsoft Defender (1)
  • Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (1)
  • Microsoft Endpoint Manager (35)
  • Mobile Application Management (4)
  • Modern Workplace (74)
  • Office 365 (10)
  • Overview (11)
  • Power Platform (1)
  • PowerShell (2)
  • Presentations (9)
  • Privileged Identity Management (5)
  • Role Based Access Control (2)
  • Security (63)
  • Service Manager (4)
  • Speaking (30)
  • Troubleshooting (4)
  • Uncategorized (11)
  • Windows 10 (15)
  • Windows 11 (5)
  • Windows Update for Business (4)
  • WMUG.nl (16)
  • WPNinjasNL (32)

Tags

#ABM #AzureAD #community #conditionalaccess #ConfigMgr #IAM #Intune #m365 #MEM #MEMCM #microsoft365 #modernworkplace #office365 #security #webinar #wmug_nl ATP authentication strength AzureAD Branding Community Conditional Access ConfigMgr ConfigMgr 2012 Email EXO Identity Intune Licensing M365 MCAS MFA Modern Workplace Office 365 OSD PIM Policy Sets Presentation RBAC roles Security System Center Task Sequence troubleshooting webinar

Recent Comments

  • brc on Protecting your Break Glass accounts in Entra now that MFA gets enforced on more and more Admin portals
  • [m365weekly] #186 – M365 Weekly Newsletter on MAM vs. MDM: Choosing the Right Mobile Management Approach
  • Dean Gross on Comparing Web Filtering and Security: Microsoft Entra Internet Access (Global Secure Access) vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE)
  • nikhil tech on Protecting your Break Glass accounts in Entra now that MFA gets enforced on more and more Admin portals
  • Kenneth on Comparing Web Filtering and Security: Microsoft Entra Internet Access (Global Secure Access) vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint (MDE)

This information is provided “AS IS” with no warranties, confers no rights and is not supported by the author.

Copyright © 2021 by Kenneth van Surksum. All rights reserved. No part of the information on this web site may be reproduced or posted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Shorthand: Don’t pass off my work as yours, it’s not nice.

©2025 Modern Workplace Blog | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT