Microsoft Active Directory CAL's?

C

cyr0n_k0r

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 30, 2001
Messages
5,360
I'm looking at the licensing for Microsoft and they mention AD CAL's?
That I need to buy an AD CAL for every workstation that is going to be inside AD. I have never heard of this.

Besides, I thought windows XP Pro would come with that CAL since it is designed to be on a domain. Has anyone ever heard of this? Or is my Microsoft rep smokin something.
 
Whatever way they word it, you are supposed to buy CAL's for the machines on the domain. We bought a bundle recently to make it easier......server came with the OS, and 10 CAL's. Workstation are separate in regards to the OS....no "built-in" CAL.

Look at the CAL like your drivers license. It lets you drive on the roads, but doesn't come with a car - and the car comes with no drivers license.
 
I'm not following. The workstations are not RDP'ing into the server to make connections. They are accessing things like DHCP, DNS, file services, GPO's.

Why does that require a CAL?
 
I too am very confused as to why you would need a CAL for each workstation. When we bought our recent batch we only needed 15 as that was going to be the number of users on our terminal server.
 
I've never heard of AD CALs either. This coming from an environment where we had 3000+ machines. The only time I've ever seen a need for CALs for the server side was when you wanted to have a Terminal Server setup.
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
I'm not following. The workstations are not RDP'ing into the server to make connections. They are accessing things like DHCP, DNS, file services, GPO's.

Why does that require a CAL?
Click to expand...

"Every user or device that accesses or uses the Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 server software requires the purchase of a Windows Server 2008 Client Access License (Windows Server CAL)" {with a few exceptions}

C7J0yc3 said:
I too am very confused as to why you would need a CAL for each workstation. When we bought our recent batch we only needed 15 as that was going to be the number of users on our terminal server.
Click to expand...

You can buy them as user based or device based CALs.....whatever works better or cheaper for you.
 
Last post sums it up.

You need a cal for every Device OR User, whichever is less, that is connecting to the server. So if you have 25 Desktops and Laptops shared by 50 users who do shifts you only need 25 cals.

The cal is needed for any machine that is accessing the Server, usually the Active Directory Domain. Other products such as Exchange is licensed separately to the number of mailboxes with the exception of the SBS and EBS systems that include Exchange as part of the standard cal.

So to sum it up. If you have a Windows SBS server with 25 users on 25 PCs connected to the domain you need to have 25 cals. This covers all the desktops on the domain along with the Exchange system.

if you have 25 users on 25 desktops on a Windows Server you need 25 cals for all PC's on the domain. You also need a cal for each exchange mailbox. so if 10 users have a mailbox you need to have 10 exchange cals.

Hope that helps.
 
No, it doesn't. Every thing I am hearing from everyone seems to keep picturing a single server environment.

Our AD forest consists of 7 domain controllers, 2 file servers, 5 terminal servers, and 2 dozen application servers.

Workstation count is ~2,000, User count is about ~3,000.

Obviously all 2000 computers are not going to be accessing the same server at the same time. If they are even accessing a server at all.

But you are trying to tell me that simply adding a Windows XP PROFESSINAL workstation to a domain requires a CAL? You've got to be kidding me. Why doesn't XP Pro come with a CAL. It's entire purpose is to be added to a domain and centrally managed.

Now if I were using this workstation to terminal into a server, or to access sharepoint services or something I could understand the need for a CAL. But AD, DNS, DHCP, File services, Print services, etc are all BUILT INTO the server operating system. Why do I need to buy a CAL to use them?
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
No, it doesn't. Every thing I am hearing from everyone seems to keep picturing a single server environment.
Click to expand...
Personally, I was thinking in small terms to keep it as simple as possible.
cyr0n_k0r said:
Our AD forest consists of 7 domain controllers, 2 file servers, 5 terminal servers, and 2 dozen application servers.
Workstation count is ~2,000, User count is about ~3,000.
Obviously all 2000 computers are not going to be accessing the same server at the same time. If they are even accessing a server at all.
But you are trying to tell me that simply adding a Windows XP PROFESSINAL workstation to a domain requires a CAL? You've got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...
Well, in theory YES......but now that the current configuration is way different from the initial response. You may or may not need one depending on a lot of different factors. Your probably going to need to do some asset management, and give MS a list of what there is, along with what you have for CAL's already.
cyr0n_k0r said:
Why doesn't XP Pro come with a CAL. It's entire purpose is to be added to a domain and centrally managed.
Now if I were using this workstation to terminal into a server, or to access sharepoint services or something I could understand the need for a CAL. But AD, DNS, DHCP, File services, Print services, etc are all BUILT INTO the server operating system. Why do I need to buy a CAL to use them?
Click to expand...
Your car didn't come with a drivers license did it?:D

I think they make it hard on purpose.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx#tab=1

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/contact-us.aspx
 
Monkey34 said:
Your car didn't come with a drivers license did it?:D
Click to expand...
IMHO that's a bad analagy.

I see it as having a choice between an Audi (pretty, nice on the inside, gets the job done)
and an Audi TT (fast, designed for an avid car driver)
You buy the Audi TT thinking it has more features than it's non turbo'd brother, only to get into the car and drive it off the lot and find out the TT doesn't work unless you pay extra to use it.

The car already has the TT in the engine, but you want more money to make it work? :rolleyes:
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
IMHO that's a bad analagy.

I see it as having a choice between an Audi (pretty, nice on the inside, gets the job done)
and an Audi TT (fast, designed for an avid car driver)
You buy the Audi TT thinking it has more features than it's non turbo'd brother, only to get into the car and drive it off the lot and find out the TT doesn't work unless you pay extra to use it.

The car already has the TT in the engine, but you want more money to make it work? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Heh...I'll give you that.;)

But then if you wanted, you could set up a Linux Domain controller.......but lose most group policy, gpo's, etc, etc.

Bet the CAL's are a better choice.
 
Last edited:
Server Licensing Not Requiring CALs

Some server products are available to be licensed on a "per processor" or "per instance" basis.
Per Processor Licensing

Under the Per Processor model, you acquire a Processor License for each processor in the server on which the software is running. A Processor License includes access for an unlimited number of users to connect from either inside the local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), or outside the firewall (via the Internet). You do not need to purchase additional server licenses, CALs, or Internet Connector Licenses.
Click to expand...
We are purchasing Server 2008 R2 data center for our virtual server hosts. Can we get away with not having to buy CAL's since we are using a per processor licensing model?

EDIT: I just got off the phone with Microsoft Pre-sales and they confirmed my above statement. If you purchase datacenter (or use the per processor licensing method) you do not have any CAL requirements! Awesome!
 
Last edited:
cyr0n_k0r said:
I'm looking at the licensing for Microsoft and they mention AD CAL's?
That I need to buy an AD CAL for every workstation that is going to be inside AD. I have never heard of this.

Besides, I thought windows XP Pro would come with that CAL since it is designed to be on a domain. Has anyone ever heard of this? Or is my Microsoft rep smokin something.

...

Our AD forest consists of 7 domain controllers, 2 file servers, 5 terminal servers, and 2 dozen application servers.

Workstation count is ~2,000, User count is about ~3,000.
Click to expand...

???

I take it you weren't in charge of setting up/building this network...to get to a 7x server and 2,000 workstation network...you should know about CALs by now.

As stated above, USER CALs or DEVICE CALs....whichever works better for your setup. I tend to always leans towards USER CALs..that way the clients network is never caught with its pants down. But in some setups...device cals can work better.

Monkeys car analogy is actually pretty good.,,,,and the Audi / AudiTT analogy doesn't work...the Audi analogy is more like comparing Windows 7 biz vs Windows 7 ultimate...either way...it's irrelevant to the CALs on the server. Just like whichever car you have...TT or non-TT...it's completely utterly irrelevant to if you have a drivers license or not.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
I take it you weren't in charge of setting up/building this network...to get to a 7x server and 2,000 workstation network...you should know about CALs by now.
Click to expand...
No I was not in charge of this network when it was setup. I also think you are making quite a few assumptions here. You assume this network is already a windows environment. You also assume this network already has some kind of AD infrastructure in place. That is not the case here. We are planning a migration from the current Novell Netware into Active Directory.

And I do know about CAL's. However as I mentioned above, I have never heard of Active Directory CAL's which is exactly what a previous Microsoft Rep called them. So I thought I would ask a question here, is that ok with you? We all can't be experts in Microsoft licensing.

YeOldeStonecat said:
As stated above, USER CALs or DEVICE CALs....whichever works better for your setup. I tend to always leans towards USER CALs..that way the clients network is never caught with its pants down. But in some setups...device cals can work better.
Click to expand...
And as I stated above, a per processor licensing model removes CAL requirements.
 
If you have a server and workstations are going to be accessing services on said server then you need a CAL. Now, you only need to buy ONE CAL per workstation. So, it you have 50 servers you still only need to purchase one CAL per workstation, not one CAL per workstation per server.

If you have all 2000/2003 servers currently and you put in a single 2008 server then you need to purchase 2008 CALs for all machines on your network accessing service on that 2008 server. This is one of the drawbacks to "upgrading" which is frequently overlooked. You need to upgrade all your CALs at the same time.

2008 does have an exception for Hyper-V. If you purchase a 2008 or 2008 R2 server and you use it as a Hyper-V host ONLY to hose virtual machines then you do not have to purchase CALs (unless, of course, your VMs are 2008).

Also, a bit of trivia..

Windows XP used to include a Terminal Services CAL. So, if you had a copy of XP you did not have to purchase a TS CAL for it to access a terminal server. After April 24, 2003 Microsoft changed this (quietly, I might add) so that the license is no longer included. I don't think they made XP any cheaper though... :p So, each copy of XP purchased prior to April 24, 2003 entitle you to one TS CAL.

Riley
 
If you have volume licensing, they call it: Windows Server - Device CAL, this is different then the Windows Terminal Server CAL obviously.
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
No I was not in charge of this network when it was setup. I also think you are making quite a few assumptions here. You assume this network is already a windows environment. You also assume this network already has some kind of AD infrastructure in place. That is not the case here. We are planning a migration from the current Novell Netware into Active Directory.

And I do know about CAL's. However as I mentioned above, I have never heard of Active Directory CAL's which is exactly what a previous Microsoft Rep called them. So I thought I would ask a question here, is that ok with you? We all can't be experts in Microsoft licensing.


And as I stated above, a per processor licensing model removes CAL requirements.
Click to expand...

As a Microsoft Licensing Specialist, this thread confuses me. Sometimes I wish I would have been a CPA because taxes seems easier.

With Datacenter, you still need cals. Datacenter allows for unlimited VM's, but you need cals
to access the vm's. Microsoft recognizes each virtual server as a physical in licensing terms, so even though the users aren't accessing the Datacenter, they're accessing the virtual servers, and that's why you need cals.

Server cals though are the only Microsoft cal that is "on the honor system" - not enough RDS, Exchange, SQL, SBS et. al. cals will lock you out, but Server cals are only needed if you're audited.
 
cyr0n_k0r said:
And as I stated above, a per processor licensing model removes CAL requirements.
Click to expand...

That's typically utilized by a different setup...well...you'll see as you (or someone) sits down to compare costs. Each one of these is near the price of that Audi you talk about.
 
KtuluX said:
As a Microsoft Licensing Specialist, this thread confuses me. Sometimes I wish I would have been a CPA because taxes seems easier.

With Datacenter, you still need cals. Datacenter allows for unlimited VM's, but you need cals
to access the vm's. Microsoft recognizes each virtual server as a physical in licensing terms, so even though the users aren't accessing the Datacenter, they're accessing the virtual servers, and that's why you need cals.

Server cals though are the only Microsoft cal that is "on the honor system" - not enough RDS, Exchange, SQL, SBS et. al. cals will lock you out, but Server cals are only needed if you're audited.
Click to expand...
Yea....I had started to post about VM's and other factors, but I didn't want a three page response that took 30 min. to type to explain different CAL requirement senario's, so I went with this:
Monkey34 said:
You may or may not need one depending on a lot of different factors.
Click to expand...

Thus the Microsoft links.;)
 
This Microsoft licensing crap is honestly just ridiculous... That's why I stopped trying to keep up with it.

Yea, I bought enough CALs and got them installed to cover my bases. But it's enough of a PITA I just disable the licensing service and be done with it.

I wish Microsoft would just tie a license to the device itself. IE- the server is licensed. Then if I hook Win7 up to it, that Win7 machine has its own license built-in.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud. IMO- if you purchase a server, and a workstation- they should work. You purchased the products. But then you have to purchase a license to talk across a logical link to each other, in essense? Just stupid.
 
On a slightly related note, does anyone know offhand if you have 15 CALs for a terminal server, does this mean that you can only have 15 people on at any given time, or only 15 people in total can have the ability to access (so someone holds a license even if they are not connected to the server)

We issued our CALs per user as we figured it would be easier to manage this way.
 
It's concurrent. Think of it as Exchange. You need a Windows CAL regardless. Then you have to have Exchange CALs (or TS CALs).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top