Replication protocol is exactly the same so yes you can set up agreements in both ways.
As far as I know, the risks are the same than when to different versions of the same
products are in a topology ( using a feature on one version that is not implemented in the other version, )
But I think that a one way replication from 389ds 1.4.4 -> rhds 12 should be OK.
We have several instances of 389-Directory (184.108.40.206), and are considering a move to Red Hat Directory Server 12.
The implementation in question has a single read-write instance, with several read-only replicas. We could hail mary the whole thing to RHDS, but the thought of that gives me deep shivers. I'd prefer to (one by one) change out the replicas, letting the new RHDS instances be populated from the existing 389-Directory instance.
Are 389-->RHDS replication agreements even possible?
Alternatively, are RHDS-->389 replication agreements possible?-- -- Do things because you should, not just because you can. John Thurston 907-465-8591 John.Thurston@alaska.gov Department of Administration State of Alaska
389-users mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://firstname.lastname@example.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
389 Directory Server Development Team