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
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
Sr. Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.
Looking to carve out IT costs?
Freeipa-users mailing list