blog/data/2009-03-29-ldap-schema-needed.txt

   1 Title: Time for new  LDAP schemas replacing RFC 2307?
   2 Tags: nuug, english, debian edu, debian, ldap
   3 Date: 2009-03-29 20:30
   4
   5 <p>The state of standardized LDAP schemas on Linux is far from
   6 optimal.  There is RFC 2307 documenting one way to store NIS maps in
   7 LDAP, and a modified version of this normally called RFC 2307bis, with
   8 some modifications to be compatible with Active Directory.  The RFC
   9 specification handle the content of a lot of system databases, but do
  10 not handle DNS zones and DHCP configuration.</p>
  11
  12 <p>In <a href="http://www.skolelinux.org/">Debian Edu/Skolelinux</a>,
  13 we would like to store information about users, SMB clients/hosts,
  14 filegroups, netgroups (users and hosts), DHCP and DNS configuration,
  15 and LTSP configuration in LDAP.  These objects have a lot in common,
  16 but with the current LDAP schemas it is not possible to have one
  17 object per entity.  For example, one need to have at least three LDAP
  18 objects for a given computer, one with the SMB related stuff, one with
  19 DNS information and another with DHCP information.  The schemas
  20 provided for DNS and DHCP are impossible to combine into one LDAP
  21 object.  In addition, it is impossible to implement quick queries for
  22 netgroup membership, because of the way NIS triples are implemented.
  23 It just do not scale.  I believe it is time for a few RFC
  24 specifications to cleam up this mess.</p>
  25
  26 <p>I would like to have one LDAP object representing each computer in
  27 the network, and this object can then keep the SMB (ie host key), DHCP
  28 (mac address/name) and DNS (name/IP address) settings in one place.
  29 It need to be efficently stored to make sure it scale well.</p>
  30
  31 <p>I would also like to have a quick way to map from a user or
  32 computer and to the net group this user or computer is a member.</p>
  33
  34 <p>Active Directory have done a better job than unix heads like myself
  35 in this regard, and the unix side need to catch up.  Time to start a
  36 new IETF work group?</p>