Hi Dan Yes, I am trying to sync the same OU to two different servers/domains. This is due to the users in our directory are splitted into several organizations, and each organization is semi-self-managed. Some of that organizations have replication agreements with their own AD domain. Now we want from the "central organization" to replicate all the users (from all the organizations) to a new AD domain which will provide mail with Exchange, so each user's OU will have two Windows replication agreements (one with the organization AD domain and other with the new "central organization" AD domain with Exchange). Anyone experienced with a topology like this? NB: Don't ask why we don't use the existing AD domains, boss things... Regards. 2012/10/24 Dan Lavu <dan@xxxxxxxx>: > Juan, > > The winsync utility is not designed to write to the same ou in 389, can you > separate the sync agreements into two different OU's or databases? I'm > making the assumption that you are making the agreements to the same OU in > 389. If you're not writing to the same OU, can you go into more detail about > the design? > > Dan > > ________________________________ > From: "Juan Asensio Sánchez" <okelet@xxxxxxxxx> > To: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:09:41 AM > Subject: AD replication agreement with 2 different > servers/domains > > > Hi > > I am trying to configure the replication between 389DS an two > different servers and domains in Active Directory. The first > replication agreement works fine, and the second works fine too in the > initialization. But when I modify some user, the change is replicated > to the first server/domain, but not to the second ones. I think this > is due to the first agreement has created the objectGUID in AD, and > replicated to 389DS in the ntUniqueId attribute, but with the second > agreement, the second server domain has created a different objectGUID > but not replicated/overwrote the previous ntUniqueId created by the > first agreement (that then would break the first agreement). Is this > correct? Is there any way to solve/workaround this? > > Regard and thanks in advance. > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
