On 02/12/2013 12:42 PM, It Meme wrote:
> Yes - Dmitri is correct.
> Our purchased IAM product has LDAP connectors. It is possible to customize to
> develop other connector protocols but it requires tweaking the core product
> code - this adds risk and, if not careful, could break our support with
> vendor or increase operational risk to a critical production system.
> The most practical option is to continue to use the LDAP connectors to
> provision accounts to directory server.
> If we use IPA, that would mean provisioning accounts, from our IAM product to
> IPA, via LDAP (Step 1) - and subsequently running a script that will call the
> python libraries to IPA-ize the provisioned accounts (Step 2).
> It will assist our help desk staff if 'Step 1' provisioned accounts were
> created in main accounts tree in IPA - then subsequent script will IPA-ize
> the accounts for 'Step 2' and accounts will be updated in same tree.
> Any gotchas foreseen with above?
Yes. You need to be very careful. You are bypassing all the checks that
framework creates around user and group management. It is also unclear
how the system would react to the half baked user. It is all doable but
you shift the risk from the tweaking core product code to creating a
custom IPA code. IMO the level of risk is nearly the same.
> We have larger user base with ~40K new accounts per year and 600K ongoing -
> automating the tasks in stable systems, and having help desk insight to
> account statuses are critical items for management.
> Thank you for your help, insights, input - they are very helpful and greatly
> On 2013-02-10, at 7:32, Dmitri Pal <d...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/09/2013 11:53 AM, John Dennis wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2013 05:29 PM, It Meme wrote:
>>>> 1) User is created via LDAP call to IPA (i.e.the 389 Directory Server)
>>>> The above user will not have IPA-specific attributes.
>>>> Can we use the Python Library, or CLI, to modify the account to
>>>> IPA-ize it?
>>> You're really better off using the IPA API directly rather than trying
>>> to bypass it. Why? Because we implement additional logic inside the
>>> commands. If you could achieve everything IPA does by just modifying
>>> an LDAP server there wouldn't be a need for IPA. A good example of
>>> this is group membership, some of that logic is handled directly by a
>>> plugin to the 389 DS, but a large part of it is implemented in the IPA
>>> commands that manage users and groups. You really don't want to bypass
>>> You have a number of options on how to call the IPA commands:
>>> 1) the ipa command line client
>>> 2) sending the command formatted in JSON to the server
>>> 3) sending the command formatted in XML-RPC to the server
>>> 4) calling the command from your own python code
>>> 5) using the web GUI
>>> It's really not hard to call the IPA command line client from a
>>> program, typically this is done via a "system" command of which there
>>> are a number of variants.
>>> The following thread has a discussion of how to invoke one of our
>>> commands from Python code, this particular email response from Martin
>>> shows how it can be done in in about half a dozen lines of code.
>>> What I'm not understanding why you're avoiding using the commands we
>>> provide. If you're not familiar with how to call another
>>> program/process we can help you or just google it. Or is the problem
>>> your existing management system does not provide you with any "hooks"
>>> to execute code when an action occurs. But from everything you've said
>>> so far you imply it does provide such hooks. Perhaps if you could be
>>> more specific we could be more helpful.
>> It seems that the management system in question can insert an entry into
>> LDAP but can't do the "generic" hook.
>> I bet this is the issue here.
>> Thank you,
>> Dmitri Pal
>> Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
>> Red Hat Inc.
>> Looking to carve out IT costs?
>> Freeipa-users mailing list
Sr. Engineering Manager for IdM portfolio
Red Hat Inc.
Looking to carve out IT costs?
Freeipa-users mailing list