1) IPA is based on the 389 LDAP server not OpenLDAP
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.
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
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
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.
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.