On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 17:45 +0200, Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Jun 2015, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2015 05:32 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2015, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>>> On 06/02/2015 05:24 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 06/02/2015 05:16 PM, Martin Kosek wrote:
> >>>>>> On 06/02/2015 05:08 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 06/02/2015 03:53 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 06/02/2015 02:20 PM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2015 12:09 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The following error was caught during replica installation (I used 
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>> the latest patches from Ludwig and Martin Basti):
> >>>>>>>> -        except ldap.TYPE_OR_VALUE_EXISTS:
> >>>>>>>> +        except (ldap.TYPE_OR_VALUE_EXISTS, ldap.NO_SUCH_OBJECT):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What happens if all replicas are updated and domain level is raised? 
> >>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> think that the group will be populated. Or will it be? Without it,
> >>>>>>>> topology
> >>>>>>>> plugin won't work, right?
> >>>>>>> good point,
> >>>>>>> it will be limited, when adding a new segment a replication agreement
> >>>>>>> will be
> >>>>>>> created, but it will not have the credentials to replicate.
> >>>>>>>> There should be a moment where all the DNs are added.
> >>>>>>> yes, there could probably be a check when topology plugin gets active 
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> binddn group exists and if not create and populate it
> >>>>>> Should we finally start maintaining by default IPA Masters hostgroup? 
> >>>>>> *That*
> >>>>>> should be the BIND DN group which Topology plugins works with, no?
> >>>>> what would be the members of this group ?
> >>>>> the binddn group needs all the ldap principals in it so that a replica 
> >>>>> can do
> >>>>> gssapi replication to another replica.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ah. Hosts would be members of the group, i.e. host/server1.example.test
> >>>> principals. If this is the case, the IPA Masters group does not look that
> >>>> helpful.
> >>> No, host's DN is fqdn=ipa.master,cn=computers,cn=accounts,$SUFFIX. This
> >>> is exception in the way Kerberos services addressed.
> >>
> >> Sure. But my point here was that host principals (and a hostgroup) are not
> >> helpful here as DS will be authenticating with ldap/... principals.
> > Correct, so you need to go one step more and simply add
> > krbprincipalname=ldap/ipa.master,... to the list. You know that if the
> > host from IPA Masters hostgroup, then it has to have ldap service and if
> > it is not, then it is not a master, so you'd skip that one.
> 
> Ah, so this is what you though. I am not sure here, I do not think we made
> services members of host group in the past. And I am not convinced we want to
> start with it now. CCing Simo for reference.
> 
> Wouldn't a system group (sysaccounts) of "replication managers" with just the
> ldap/ principals cleaner and perfectly inline with what we did with 
> "cn=adtrust
> agents,cn=sysaccounts,cn=etc,SUFFIX"?

I do not have a strong preference, the advantage of a host group is that
admins can see and manipulate it ... and that is also the disadvantage
in this case. As it is a great way to break replication.
So perhaps, yes, having a masters groups under sysaccount may be safer
for now.

Simo.

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to