1)
IPA is based on the 389 LDAP server not OpenLDAP
Ok.
2)
SSSD does not provide front end to Samba/Winbind it just has
similar functionality. In future we might reuse more of the samba
libraries. Currently we use some samba libraries in SSSD but more
as building blocks for the solution than the back end that
connects to AD.
I see.
3)
There is a project called reamld, this project would perform AD
join of SSSD in the Linux environment. It will replace the need
for your sss_adjoin script
Thanks for the info. Unfortunately this project did not find its way
into RHEL 6 so we can not use it. But I will mention it on my
presentation
4)
Can you please elaborate a bit on the tools? Which tools Centrify
has that would be useful for SSSD to have? Can you file tickets
with those?
The tools we would welcome the most would be:
adflush - flush all databases, force reload all data from
ldap servers. Right now I have to stop sssd, delete all ldb files
and start sssd again - this is a bit cruel.
adinfo - tell the user is there is some working connection to
any ldap server or whether we are running completely in the
disconnected mode. Right now I have to dig through the logs to find
out.
I think both have been discussed here, but the idea was eventually
abandoned by the sssd developers
5)
In addition to direct automounter support in SSSD there is also
direct sudo support, management of the SSH keys and SELinux user
mapping integration coming at the same time.
I will mention that.
6) I
do not think you emphasize the value of IPA.
True. This was on purpose because my main objective is get something
we already have (Centrify) cheaper & better. I understand that
using IPA would give us further benefits, but this is out of my
current scope.
Also you mentioned DNS sites, https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1032
Is it required or the notion of the primary and secondary servers
that was added in 1.9 sufficiently addresses the issue?
This ticket was actually created by me and I see that the solution
for this one has been deferred
:-( .
Primary & secondary servers support in 1.9 will not help us as
we need a true sites support as per the ticket above. I believe it
would be useful for large IPA domains, too.
Many thanks
Ondrej