On Tue, 02 Jun 2015, Simo Sorce wrote:
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 
>>>>>>>>>> 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? 
>>>>>> 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

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.
I'm fine to have that too, we rely on it in trusts case so just follow
the pattern.
/ Alexander Bokovoy

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

Reply via email to