Documentation now describes configuration and limitations of IdM clients using an AD DNS host name
The Identity Management (IdM) documentation has been enhanced and now describes the configuration of IdM clients located in the DNS name space of a trusted Active Directory (AD) domain. Note that this is not a recommended configuration and has some limitations. For example, only password authentication is available to access these clients instead of single sign-on. Red Hat recommends to always deploy IdM clients in a DNS zone different from the ones owned by AD and access IdM clients through their IdM host names.
For detailed information, see https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Windows_Integration_Guide/ipa-in-ad-dns.html.
Description of problem:
In many user environments, the potential IdM clients are in a DNS domain controlled by Active Directory (aka "Trust Frankenstein setup").
Requirement to migrate them all to an IdM controlled domain is not usually rather complicated. This bug is a request for procedure or a document on how to deploy IdM with a client hostname in an AD DNS domain.
IDMRHEL-42: As an Administrator with a big number of Linux machines in a DNS domain controlled by Active Directory, I want to join them to the IdM Server so that they can benefit from it’s Linux focused features.
The current recipe on joining clients from Windows controlled domain in FreeIPA/IdM domain is described in this article:
Ticket #5903 was fixed upstream:
can we switch component to LDI guide given that there is no code? (https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5903 was just a convenient helper)
I changed the component of the BZ and removed it from the RN list.
(In reply to Petr Vobornik from comment #11)
> can we switch component to LDI guide given that there is no code?
> (https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/5903 was just a convenient helper)
I do not think we should do that. There is
#5903 always add mapping (my hostname) = (IPA realm) to krb5.conf
that can be tested that you mentioned.
I would like to use this Bugzilla as explicit exclamation of support levels of these scenarios, as described in the new documentation. At minimum, the Bugzilla can be used for tracking test coverage and automation.
This setup is dicussed at length in following blog post:
Created attachment 1200480 [details]
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.