On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 08:04, Ohad Levy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 15:02, Andrew Forgue <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 14, 6:15 pm, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:10, Andrew Forgue <
> [email protected]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Dec 13, 11:27 pm, Daniel Pittman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > diff --git a/lib/puppet/network/resolver.rb
> >> >> >> > b/lib/puppet/network/resolver.rb
> >> >> >> > new file mode 100644
> >> >> >> > index 0000000..9165efb
> >> >> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> >> >> > +++ b/lib/puppet/network/resolver.rb
> >> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >> > +    Puppet.debug "Searching for SRV records for #{hostname}"
> >> >> >> > +    rrs = resolver.getresources(hostname,
> >> >> >> > Resolv::DNS::Resource::IN::SRV)
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Doesn't this resolve the label 'example.com', where you wanted
> >> >> >> '_puppet._tcp.example.com'?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > So something like a config variable called "use_srv_records" which
> >> > defaults to true
> >>
> >> True or false as consensus says: I like true, but I am not religious
> about
> >> it.
> >>
> >> > as well as "srv_record" that defaults to _puppet._tcp.$domain.
> >> > Would that be better?  I think it would.
> >>
> >> *nod*  I would be very happy with that: it means that there are two
> >> sensible auto-discovery methods for Puppet clients starting on a
> >> network: DNS-SD, and the puppet.$domain CNAME.  Both pretty much
> >> harmless, so far as I can tell, if they are not used.
> >>
> >> If others felt really strongly I would also support doing DNS-SD
> >> against 'puppet.$domain', but I don't think that is really a good
> >> value-added choice.
> >>
> >> >  This way you can turn on/off the SRV functionality as well as
> >> > override the default domain lookup.  If the _puppet._tcp.$domain is
> >> > NXDOMAIN, it falls back to whatever server is.  Is that reasonable?
> >>
> >> Absolutely.  Thank you very much for doing this, by the way: I think
> >> adding DNS-SD is a great feature, and will be very pleased to see it
> >> come along.  It makes big deployments so much easier to manage if the
> >> clients can automatically discover and work with any number of puppet
> >> master instances without extra configuration.
> >
> > Does it make sense to add another lookup for the CA server?
>
> I think in the longer term it would make sense to do an SRV lookup for
> each unique service that Puppet uses; SRV lookups (RFC2782)
> distinguishes based on service and protocol.  Which, I think, would be
> vaguely in conflict with the CA requirement, since that uses the same
> puppet service (as in, TCP port) for communication.
>

It doesn't *necessarily* use the same port remember, it just does by
default.


> I would assume
> > that if you have multiple masters you are sharing one common CA?
> > or rather do you expect that provisioning takes care for the initial
> > certificate generation?
>
> I honestly assumed that it wasn't work trying to change the rest of
> the stack at the same time: getting the basic SRV support in and then
> solving the edge cases was enough for me.  DNS-SD defined the use of a
> text record alongside the SRV record to pass additional key/value
> pairs - I don't know the standardization state of that, but it could
> theoretically allow exporting of that information.
>
> In the short term I would expect that being able to set a CA server
> name explicitly on the client would be sufficient for any deployment
> scenario I can easily imagine...
>
> Regards,
>    Daniel
> --
> ✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ [email protected]            ☎ +61 401 155
> 707
>               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Puppet Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected]<puppet-dev%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Nigel Kersten - Puppet Labs -  http://www.puppetlabs.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.

Reply via email to