Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #8945] krb5kdc: the 32 realms limit

"Дилян Палауз ов via RT" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.encryption.kerberos.bugs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
<URL: https://krbdev.mit.edu/rt/Ticket/Display.html?id=8945 >

Hello,

I withdraw the request.

As it turned out, in order to be able change the password for a
separate realm, a separate kadmind process has to run.  So for many
realms hosted on few hosts, many kadmind processes have to run on the
hosts for the rare event of changing a password.  This is overkill.

Greetings
  Дилян

В 21:56 +0300 на 08.09.2020 (вт), Дилян Палаузов написа:
> Hello,
> 
> In my use case, all things shall go in a single Kerberos DataBase
> (KDB), all under LDAP(kldap).  Say it this way: I want to have many
> users, and each user gets a separate domain.  REALM=DOMAIN.  So there
> are many realms with very few users in each.
> 
> Greetings
>   Dilyan
> 
> On Tue, 2020-09-08 at 13:20 -0400, Greg Hudson via RT wrote:
> > For your use case, would it be better to have a separate KDB for
> > each
> > realm
> > (implying separate storage, propagation, and backup), or have one
> > KDB
> > to which
> > realms could be added and removed?
> > 
> > To answer one of your questions, if you ran two separate krb5kdc
> > processes each
> > with 31 -r options to get around the current 32-realm limitation,
> > they would
> > have to serve different ports.
> > 
> > 


_______________________________________________
krb5-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krb5-bugs
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.