On ke, 16 loka 2019, Sven Ludwig via FreeIPA-users wrote:
Thanks for the quick answer. As I am forced to use a non-email-product
to write emails, please consider the following as "quoted properly" - i
did my very best ;)
;) I'm reformatting the answers to fit the view, no problem.
>>Are there any further problems with using single label domains
>>currently or in the future?
>There are problems when using forest trust to Active Directory. AD
>simply doesn't support single label domains anymore.
>The real problem is that you might not know whether you would need to
>integrate with AD at the time IPA is deployed. Realm cannot be changed
>afterwards, so if you'd stuck with single label domain, you stuck
>forever. With no reasonable migration path to export all data including
>hashed keys for Kerberos principals to a different deployment (with
>different realm), you would block yourself forever.
This is always true if you decided to implement a certain thing on more
then one instance. As you might already guessed, stuck is the situation
I am in right now with thousands of clients deployed. We're stuck with
centos ~7.6, where this check wasn't enforced to our environment or
with continuously patching the package on our local mirrors.
There is https://pagure.io/freeipa/issue/8058
which was fixed recently
that should help adding new clients into existing single label
deployments. It is currently scheduled to next minor RHEL 7 update.
>Another problem is that use of single label setup implies that you own
>DNS TLD domain for it. E.g., for EXAMPLE realm, you need to own
>.example. This is not going to work for all users unless they aren't
>really integrating with global DNS system. But then it breaks badly
>DNSSEC integrity as well as other DNS protection technologies. Although
>something might work today, it will be broken tomorrow with
>DNS-over-HTTPS, for example, where actual DNS name resolution is
>performed outside your environment for everything, including your
>What is possible technically in an isolated environment is not something
>that should be promoted for general use. So we strongly discourage that.
I totally get your point here. Because as thinking of the main driver
into this, I'd rather expect a wizard which denies this option, but a
proper work around using power shell or regedit. So from your point of
you is patching the util.py the only way left to continue using your
very own top level domain in isolated and non public environments?
. It will not help for adding
new replicas, though. For that one I'm not expecting any change...
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland