Ah good to know about, thanks!
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:18 AM, John Devitofranceschi
wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Todd Grayson wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any general wisdom out there about mixed KDC/Client versions?
> Are
> > there concerns around allowing environments dri
> On Jul 29, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Todd Grayson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is there any general wisdom out there about mixed KDC/Client versions? Are
> there concerns around allowing environments drift to where a KDC would be
> on a later release than the clients?
>
There was this one:
http://krbdev.m
Interesting, I'll take a look, thanks!
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
> > >Is there any general wisdom out there about mixed KDC/Client versions?
> Are
> > >there concerns around allowing environments drift to where a KDC woul
Actually the krbtgt got generated without a renewable life value (was at
0), missed this during the troubleshooting, so nothing other than the need
to express renew lifetime properly in the configuration. Thanks tho for
the feedback.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Ken Hornstein
wrote:
> >Is t
On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> >Is there any general wisdom out there about mixed KDC/Client versions? Are
> >there concerns around allowing environments drift to where a KDC would be
> >on a later release than the clients?
>
> FWIW, we run a whole bunch of crazy versions of Kerberos
>Is there any general wisdom out there about mixed KDC/Client versions? Are
>there concerns around allowing environments drift to where a KDC would be
>on a later release than the clients?
FWIW, we run a whole bunch of crazy versions of Kerberos, and generally
there is not an interoperability pro
