Roel van Meer
2015-Nov-03 15:08 UTC
[Samba] Cannot create OrganizationalUnit under ou=Users
Hi everyone, I have a Samba 4.2.4 AD which works fine. I'm using Windows RSAT and I'm trying to create an OU under ou=Users, but this is not allowed. I can create OU's in the top DN, but not under ou=Users. Could this be a permissions problem or is this simply not possible or allowed? Thanks a lot, Roel
On 11/3/2015 10:08 AM, Roel van Meer wrote:> Hi everyone, > > I have a Samba 4.2.4 AD which works fine. I'm using Windows RSAT and > I'm trying to create an OU under ou=Users, but this is not allowed. I > can create OU's in the top DN, but not under ou=Users. > > Could this be a permissions problem or is this simply not possible or > allowed? > > Thanks a lot, > > Roel >Not possible. It's a container and not a OU. -- -James
Rowland Penny
2015-Nov-03 15:50 UTC
[Samba] Cannot create OrganizationalUnit under ou=Users
On 03/11/15 15:08, Roel van Meer wrote:> Hi everyone, > > I have a Samba 4.2.4 AD which works fine. I'm using Windows RSAT and > I'm trying to create an OU under ou=Users, but this is not allowed. I > can create OU's in the top DN, but not under ou=Users. > > Could this be a permissions problem or is this simply not possible or > allowed? > > Thanks a lot, > > Roel >Could be it is because it isn't ou=Users and is cn=Users ? Rowland
Marc Muehlfeld
2015-Nov-03 16:04 UTC
[Samba] Cannot create OrganizationalUnit under ou=Users
Am 03.11.2015 um 16:43 schrieb James:> Not possible. It's a container and not a OU.Right. However Roel, you can create an OU for your users/computers and redirect the standard to them: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/324949 Then you can have sub-OUs, link GPOs to them, etc. and ignore cn=Users/cn=Computer. Regards, Marc
Maybe Matching Threads
- Cannot create OrganizationalUnit under ou=Users
- Cannot create OrganizationalUnit under ou=Users
- Automating creation of OUs, security groups and GPOs, in Samba AD DC
- Lost outgoing SIP packets
- 2nd DC, internal DNS: dns_tkey_negotiategss: TKEY is unacceptable - SOLVED