Re: NIS/YP revelation (I think)

["Derek Martin-9" <user=7@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:54:01PM -0400, Scott Ehrlich wrote: 
> So I configured my Enterprise 5 server to have NFS configured on specific 
> ports via the NFS Server menu option. 

I'm guessing you did this so you could pin down the port for firewall 
reasons?  Are you blocking port 111?  NIS is an RPC service, which 
talks to portmap to establish which ports it wants to talk on.  If 
your client machines can't talk to the portmap daemon on the server, 
that could certainly prevent your clients from binding to your NIS 
servers. 

Of course, if you made this change for no particular reason, my first 
suggestion would be, "don't do that!" :) 

> Since having done that, I am unable to get my two CentOS 5 
> workstations to bind via YP.  One worked just fine before the port 
> reconfiguration, but broke after. The other never worked fine. 

Are your clients trying to bind to a particular IP, or are they 
broadcasting for a server to find?  Messing with the ports seems the 
likely cause in the first case, but for the machine that never worked, 
probably something else was broken already.  Without looking at your 
machine, or having a lot more information about your setup, it's hard 
to give other useful suggestions.  Is there anything useful in the 
system logs around the time you try to bind?  Seeing those messages, 
or perhaps the output of your tcpdump might be fairly enlightening... 

> What do I need to change on the client side to permit binding?  I 
> presume the port changes are the problem, and solution. 

NIS is pretty old and broken...  you might consider ditching it 
altogether in favor of, say, LDAP... maybe with Kerberos on top. 
Depends on what you need for security.  But almost anything (even flat 
files plus rcp/rsync) is better than NIS... unless of course NIS is a 
specific requirement for whatever you're doing. 

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 
-=-=-=-=- 
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in 
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss