[SSSD-users] FW: 1.11.5 ddns failure on Ubuntu 14.04[SOLVED]
Jakub Hrozek
jhrozek at redhat.com
Thu Jun 26 11:48:26 UTC 2014
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:00:47AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 16:22 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 04:07:12PM +0200, steve wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 15:43 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:34:25AM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 09:30 +0000, Longina Przybyszewska wrote:
> > > > > > With correct domain ;)...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >By default, we contact the server we establish the LDAP connection with. I’m sorry, I got a bit lost in the thread — what was >the difference between the right server and the wrong server in your setup.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In our case, DNS server is not LDAP - it is separate win DNS serer.
> > > > > > There is also split DNS server resolving all in/out requests from intern clients.
> > > > > > This one is known for resolver on all clients, but can't be used for dyndns updates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >In general, SSSD tries to do as little as possible and we try to let nsupdate do its job right..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But sssd supplies data for update record for nsupdate, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please open a bug against sssd.
> > > >
> > > > Please don't (yet).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > For some reason the server name is being forcibly served top nsupdate
> > > > > and that shouldn't be the case, passing a "server" option should be only
> > > > > a fallback case.
> > > >
> > > > It is only a fallback, the way I read the code. I haven't seen the full
> > > > domain logs, so I can't tell if the sssd falls back to trying the server
> > > > or tries the server right away (which would be a bug).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nsupdate should be let the ability to discover the correct server by
> > > > > querying the DNS and picking the available authoritative server.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to quote the above ion the ticket. It is definitely a bug in
> > > > > sssd.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not.
> > >
> > > But if we already know the answer for which DNS server to use, surely
> > > sssd should not override what has been set locally at /etc/resolv.conf
> > > should it? If you must pass the server name then choose the one which
> > > has already been given, not the one which you've found via SRVs.
> > > Just our €0,02
> > > Steve
> >
> > You're describing something different than what Simo was describing.
> >
> > So you're proposing that the 'server' directive is a server from
> > /etc/resolv.conf, not whatever server we are talking to?
> >
> > If that's the case, then it wouldn't work. Quite often, the server in
> > resolv.conf would be just 127.0.0.1 and a local dnsmasq or similar would
> > be running on the client machine. Or the AD server could be resolved
> > with the help of /etc/hosts..
>
> Correct, however the way the AD code uises the server names makes little
> sense. It uses the name used to connect to the LDAP server. Although
> this is generally a Domain Controller, it is not necessarily a DNS
> server (can be even a RODC). So if we need a fallback that should be an
> option specified in sssd.conf: something like: fallback_dns_master or
> similar.
Yes, I agree with this, a new option seems like the only way. I will
open a ticket.
> Deriving the DNS server from the LDAP name will be wrong more times than
> it is right in large environments.
OK, perhaps, I guess your experience here is better than mine and the
fact we're debugging the problem at all proves there /is/ a problem.
>
> Simo.
>
> --
> Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
>
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list
> sssd-users at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-users
More information about the sssd-users
mailing list