Hi,

I too ran into a lot of places where INVERSE (realm) kept popping up.

For us, things got a lot better after I changed the default realm in 
/etc/krb5.conf. Hope this will help you too.

MJ

On 6/9/2015 17:11, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I want to ask especially the folks at inverse, if there is a recommended
> configuration with pf 5.1 .
>
> (I mean which distro do YOU recommend, as you do most testing on it at
> your place…)
>
> Am I right, that you do use RH or centos at INVERSE?
>
> I do ask, because I think I did try nearly every combination (excluding
> RedHat) since January and there wasn’t one that ran without issues.
>
> Yes, I did make the mistake to try pf with 4.x and as I wasn’t live with
> the system when the 5.0 came out I thought it would be a good idea to
> start our live-life with pf with the new version. Poor me, I even
> dropped the VM as the Installation of the 4.x went so well, I didn’t
> think it could be else with the 5.x versions.
>
> (YES, I am in programming business, I should have known better… J)
>
> If I did understand the posts here right, Louis is doing the packaging?
>
> Louis, I DO know how hard packaging and install tests are (in fact, I
> was part of these tests at our place before I got my actual working
> area) so you do have my FULL RESPECT(!!).
>
> You may allow me to suggest this:
>
> May be it would be helpful to test the pf installation at against
> “changing” ADs (not just)INVERSE, because since 5.0 it is a pain in the
> a.. to get the pf working against an own AD which is NOT called
> “INVERSE” (at least for a dumbhead like me, it seems). “INVERSE”
> seems/seemed(?) to be hardcoded in numerous places and neither the
> krb5.conf, nor the corresponding winbind/samba config files looked like
> they should look like, if one compared them to what the pf documentation
> says they should – for THAT Linux distribution (eg. debian).
>
> There is no need for n ADs, just two and the second just to make sure,
> there are no “INVERSE specifics” hardcoded. The more “rudimentary” the
> second is, the easier it is to see, that the “INVERSE” settings are not
> “templated” for everyone.
>
> Bye,
>
> Holger
>
> --
>
> Holger Patzelt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PacketFence-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users

Reply via email to