Webinar: 'Guide to Scaling OpenLDAP with MySQL Cluster'



Register here
Suretec®
The key to this first factor is that OpenLDAP is the most efficient, most stable, and most suitable LDAP[?] Directory Service technology for Enterprise production use. Installing it as a new service or an upgrade to an older technology will be the most cost-effective step assuming the capacity is available. In general, replacing an older Directory Technology will reduce the processor load by two to five times. It will also improve the stability of the server(s) making simplification of configurations tuned to frequent server outages possible. Symas OpenLDAP is available under inexpensive annual support subscriptions with no consideration for the number of CPUs in the server or the number of objects/entries in the Directory, too. So, our preference of platform, in general, is put OpenLDAP (Symas OpenLDAP) on what you’ve got!
- Protocols:Nowadays, the folks over at the Burton Group such as Bob Blakely, Dan Blum and Gerry Gebel have put together the most wonderful XACML interoperability events. The question that isn't addressed is if I am building an enterprise application from scratch, should I XACML-enabled, think about integrating with STS, stick to traditional LDAP invocation or something else?
- Virtual Directories: What role should a virtual directory play in an Identity metasystem? Should virtual directory be a standalone product in the new world and simply be a feature of an STS? If an enterprise were savage in consolidating all directory information into Active Directory, why would I still need virtualization?
- Entitlements: One missing component of the discussion is authorization and their is somewhat too much focus on identity. Consider the scenario where if you were to ask my boss if I am still an employee, he would say yes as he hasn't fired me yet. Likewise, if you ask him what are all of the wonderful things I can access within the enterprise, he would say that he has no freakin clue, but as soon as you figure it out, please let him know. Honestly, even in my role, there are probably things that I can do but shouldn't otherwise have access to. So, the question becomes how come the identity conversation hasn't talked about any constructs around attestation and authorization?
- Workflow: Have you ever attempted to leave a comment on Kim Cameron blog? You will be annoyed with the registration/workflow aspects. The question this raises in my mind is what identity standards should exist for workflow? There are merits in this scenario for integrating with the OASIS SPML standard, but I can equally see value in considering BPEL as well.
- Education: Right now the conversation regarding identity is in the land of geeks and those who are motivated to read specifications. There is a crowd of folks who need things distilled, the readers digest version if you will. Traditionally, this role is served by industry analysts such as Gartner and Forrester. What would it take for this guys to get off their butts and start publishing more thoughtful information in this space?
- Conferences: When do folks think that the conversation about identity will occur at other than identity/security conferences? For example, wouldn't it have been wonderful if Billy Cripe, Craig Randall and Laurence Hart where all talking about the identity metasystem in context of ECM?
OpenLDAP is unmatched by any other directory service, proprietary or open source. Of all the others available, the proprietary ones are just hiding their dirty laundry and all of them are just a waste of time and money.
It is interesting to see how a thread on how identity provisioning tools and their lack of true interoperability with Active Directory gets twisted into a discussion on the merits of OpenLDAP. What is interesting is that the comparison is solely technical and doesn't provide any rationale related to how much it would cost to maintain OpenLDAP vs ADAM[?].
You will also notice mention of one and only one Fortune enterprise that uses it as their primary directory service. Of course, the mentioned company is in the consulting business so this isn't surprising. Maybe the mention of a bank or retailer in the Fortune ranks is in order. I suspect the economics nor the customer base simply aren't their...
Consider for a moment, how many Fortune enterprises have Active Directory in a production environment. Out of the Fortune 500, Sun is the only hold out. You would think that if Active Directory were so pervasively implemented that software vendors would want to deeply integrate with it, but nothing could be further from the truth.
What about LDAP[?], the Internet directory standard, I asked.
“We looked at lots of technologies, but first we listened to our enterprise customers. They want to leverage technology in place, and Active Directory has a powerful policy engine. LDAP doesn’t have that. We don’t take a stand. We just go where the customers are.”
That, however, is the other side of the coin here. Microsoft is allowing integration with Active Directory, but over time it hopes LDAP will wither due to a shortage of competitive enterprise features.
[Microsoft] hopes LDAP will wither due to a shortage of competitive enterprise features.