On 04/16/2012 09:46 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:40:16AM -0400, Dmitri Pal wrote:
>>    On 04/13/2012 11:00 PM, Brian Cook wrote:
>>      Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to accomplish.  I've already been
>>      looking in to the BIND views clause and would like to hear if anyone has
>>      any feedback as to how well this works in the real world.
>>      In this case the implementation of IPA is using an external standard
>>      BIND implementation loading from text files.  However, views would be
>>      very useful for IPA to be able to do internally, so figuring out how to
>>       get this option in to BIND using 389ds backend would be a useful step.
>>    AFAIK there is an SSSD RFE that allows you to define a group of primary
>>    servers for a client that the client would use to fail over between and
>>    only when they all are not available it will fail over to DNS. At least I
>>    remember a discussion about it. It seems that such feature would
>>    accomplish the same but with less work. Would it be sufficient?
>>    See comment 6 in the https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1128
> Yes, except with the feature that Petr Spacek is proposing, the
> configuration would be performed purely on server side, as I understood.
> The SSSD fix would work, but would require that clients in different
> "sites" have different primary servers configured. Still, doable with
> puppet or something, just not as convenient.

Sure but it is a minor feature for SSSD while would be a major feature
for IPA.
On SSSD side it is already scheduled on the IPA side we might not have
enough time to do it soon.

> _______________________________________________
> Freeipa-users mailing list
> Freeipa-users@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users

Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-users mailing list

Reply via email to