[keycloak-user] Fallback to secondary federation provider possible?

[Josh Cain]

Long story short, it's the same user base, but exposed in a completely
different way (as opposed to exactly the same services set in something
like different data centers).  As such, we thought two separate Federation
Providers were appropriate, but now have realized that the failover case
described above isn't covered.

I know this is a pretty non-standard use.  We're in the middle of a
migration of our services layer, so we're kind of an outlier when it comes
to typical usage patterns.  We've talked through simply handling this
failover manually using a single provider, and we can by with that for now,
but we're looking ahead at some similar use cases that might experience the
same problem.

@Bill I think some kind of stackable configuration like the authenticators
have could be really useful for us.  If we could mark providers as
'alternative' or 'optional' in the same way it would give us what we need.
Anyway, just an idea.  At the end of the day I think we're after a way to
customize the way in which federation providers interact with one another
(or don't), whatever that looks like.

Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
*Identity and Access Management*
*Red Hat*
+1 843-737-1735

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Stian Thorgersen <sthorger at redhat.com>
wrote:

> With the current user federation strategy we have wouldn't this type of
> failover be implemented in the user federation provider itself? You're not
> actually "falling" back to another provider, it's the same provider, but
> the slave replica right?
>
> On 3 May 2016 at 18:29, Bill Burke <bburke at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> We don't have anything like that.  Keycloak assumes that username is
>> unique in a federation.  Before validating credentials it goes through
>> federation list.  The first provider that finds a user of that username
>> will have credentials validated against it.
>>
>> So, no failover.  I'm not sure i that's something Keycloak should be
>> responsible for.  I'm open to adding it though.
>>
>>
>> On 5/3/2016 12:19 PM, Josh Cain wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're attempting to stack a number of FederationProviders, and I was
>> wondering if Keycloak currently does, or plans to support falling back to a
>> secondary provider *after* another provider has already been used.
>>
>> For example, consider a realm with two providers configured:
>>
>>    1. ProviderA, Priority 0
>>    2. ProviderB, Priority1
>>
>> Where ProviderB is a fall-back mechanism containing the same logical
>> userbase as ProviderA.
>> If *user1* logs into Keycloak and is associated with ProviderA, then
>> ProviderA goes down, we'd ideally like for ProviderB to be able to
>> authenticate the user.  Right now, all our Keycloak instance does is
>> attempt to authenticate *user1* with ProviderA, then fails if the
>> provider is unsuccessful.  Is there a way to failover to ProviderB should
>> ProviderA become unavailable?
>>
>> Josh Cain | Software Applications Engineer
>> *Identity and Access Management*
>> *Red Hat*
>> +1 843-737-1735
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing listkeycloak-user at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bill Burke
>> JBoss, a division of Red Hathttp://bill.burkecentral.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> keycloak-user mailing list
>> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> keycloak-user mailing list
> keycloak-user at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/keycloak-user
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/keycloak-user/attachments/20160503/4421c445/attachment.html