lejeczek via FreeIPA-users wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/04/2022 18:04, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>> lejeczek via FreeIPA-users wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/04/2022 16:50, Rob Crittenden wrote:
>>>> lejeczek via FreeIPA-users wrote:
>>>>> On 30/03/2022 09:19, Alexander Bokovoy via FreeIPA-users wrote:
>>>>>> On ke, 30 maalis 2022, Boris Behrens via FreeIPA-users wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> I am currently trying to cleanup our IPA installation and saw that
>>>>>>> all our
>>>>>>> clients only got a single server configured, which doesn't sound
>>>>>>> good.
>>>>>>> (we've currently got two IPA servers).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there some sort of record that can be used?
>>>>>> Look into man page for 'ipa' tool:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SERVERS
>>>>>>          The ipa client will determine which server to connect to in
>>>>>> this order:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          1. The server configured in /etc/ipa/default.conf in the
>>>>>> xmlrpc_uri directive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          2. An unordered list of servers from the ldap DNS SRV
>>>>>> records.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          If a kerberos error is raised by any of the requests then it
>>>>>> will stop processing and display the error message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But is that really a problem, and if not, when could that be a
>>>>> problem?
>>>>> I see all my clients end up with only single server in config files -
>>>>> the which client hooked to at the installation time - is that not
>>>>> how it
>>>>> should be?
>>>> It is only a potential problem if you don't use DNS discovery and that
>>>> server goes away.
>>>>
>>>> In /etc/ipa/default.conf the server value is deprecated. The value of
>>>> xmlrpc_uri is used to determine the API endpoint of an IPA server.
>>>>
>>>> This mostly affects the IPA tools and certmonger, all of which try DNS
>>>> discovery first.
>>>>
>>>> There is no way to specify multiple servers in /etc/ipa/default.conf.
>>>>
>>>> So the worse case scenario is you don't use DNS discovery and a server
>>>> goes away permanently never to be re-created. Any client with that
>>>> hardcoded server value won't be able to use certmonger or IPA tools
>>>> like
>>>> ipa-certupdate, ipa, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly SSSD is by default configured with: ipa_server = _srv_,
>>>> ipa.example.test
>>>>
>>>> So if there is no DNS discovery and that one server dies, you're done
>>>> until you restore the server or change the value (SSSD caching can
>>>> mitigate this to some extent, it will be treated as offline).
>>>>
>>>> Going into your clients to evenly divide them between the two servers
>>>> could save you some work if one went down forever but relying on DNS
>>>> discovery to find servers is recommended and preferred.
>>>>
>>>> rob
>>>>
>>> How about bit "twisted" way of having things run, when only one - for
>>> whatever imaginary reason - server is available to clients. Not at all
>>> times but at a given time, say... today it's masterA but tomorrow will
>>> be masterB
>>> That would brakes some clients some times, correct?
>>> And if so - would IPA be okay with a primitive remedy such as
>>> 'xmlrpc_uri' pointing to a URI/record with a non-existing/not actual
>>> host's hostname (still IPA server)? which would be always accessible to
>>> all clients?
>> If you have DNS SRV records then it should continue to work fine. There
>> just may be a delay in some requests until failover occurs.
>>
>> We do not recommend putting a load balancer in front of IPA. It's a lot
>> of manual effort and lots of room to make mistakes.
>>
>> rob
>>
> not a load-balancer - a record with a non-existing/non-actual server's
> hostname, but still IPA server.
> Better described as a "floating" record perhaps?
> srv1.ipa.com A x.x.x
> srv2.ipa.com A x.x.x
> some more..
> mama.ipa.com A z.z.z (which IP, "physically" will travel from server to
> server on "whatever" basis)
> 
> then 'xmlrpc_uri' points to 'mama.ipa.com'
> ?
> As long as this does not brake IPA in some way, it's a "workaround"
> which makes my setups very happy.

Are you saying this works? I wouldn't expect it to.

With TLS and Kerberos if you ask for host/service "foo" and get "bar"
back it should fail.

Unless you've done the work to add additional SAN and Kerberos naming.

rob
_______________________________________________
FreeIPA-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Reply via email to