Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1566

On Thursday, May 24, 2012, nalin@redhat.com via RT wrote:

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:04:30PM -0400, Greg Hudson via RT wrote:
> We have someone interested in solving this issue. Do you think it would
> be sufficient to add an inetd option to krb5kdc?
>
> Because we serve over UDP and TCP, and because correctly implementing a
> UDP server in the Unix socket interface is more difficult than it should
> be, our server network loop is very complicated. Deferring this issue to
> inetd would have a small UI footprint and would add a small amount of
> additional complexity. Adding specific address configuration would have a
> larger UI footprint and a larger increase in complexity, I expect. But
> it's something we could still consider.

It sounds like it could. Would such a setup end up firing up a
different KDC (or kadmind) process for each listening address that
received traffic?

Yes. That's how intend works. Note the each krb5kdc instance could still run a number of worker process larger than one.

Nico