openldap-software

openldap-software@openldap.org

2719 discussions

Regarding Tree hierarchy in openLDAP
by Anjali Arora 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Hi, Actually i want to create a directory tree hierarchy. If i mention suffix as dc=example,dc=com and next time a want to add dn: cn=file_name,ou=Development,dc=example,dc=com and dn: cn=file2,ou=SoftwareDeveloper,dc=example,dc=com then server is not allowing me to perform these kinds of operation server is giving ERROR: server is umwilling to perform the operation. how to handle this situation Please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks and Regards, Anjali

3 2

Newbie Help Mapping Attributes
by Simon Kelsall 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

Hi, I have set up LDAP to authenticate and work with Samba and a couple of other things but I am getting lost with the following. We have 2 new printers that can pull their address book from LDAP. I cant change the seach filter they use but was hoping to map their attributes onto ones in our directory. So for example any referance to facsimileTelephoneNumber by them in the search filter or list of attributes to return would get changed to faxNumber. Could someone point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance -- Simon Kelsall Network Administrator St James the Great R.C Primary & Nursery School http://www.stjamesthegreat.org/

2 1

Re: [Unofficial] OpenLDAP Weekly Newsletter Issue 2
by Gavin Henry 05 Nov '07

05 Nov '07

<quote who="Quanah Gibson-Mount"> > --On Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:52 PM +0000 Gavin Henry > <ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org> wrote: > >> - OpenLDAP 2.4.6 Released - The first stable release in the 2.4 branch > > I'm not usually pedantic about these types of things, but I'd like to > note. > OpenLDAP 2.4.6 is the first official release of OpenLDAP 2.4. It is *not* > marked stable (not to say that it isn't stable for running). OpenLDAP > 2.3.38 is, and remains, the current "stable release" of OpenLDAP. Please > stop using stable to refer to 2.4.6. The Symas connexitor blog did this > recently too in an entry since dropped for revision, so I hope that bit > stays revised out. I think it needs to remain very clear what the project > (and you are an official member and voice of that project) proclaims as > the > stable release. I know, sorry for the confusion. It's not the first official though, as we've had alpha and then Beta. They were officially released by our project. Should I say first non-beta? > > --Quanah > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Principal Software Engineer > Zimbra, Inc > -------------------- > Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration >

3 2

[Unofficial] OpenLDAP Weekly Newsletter Issue 2
by Gavin Henry 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Dear All, The second issue is out: http://blog.suretecsystems.com Summary: - OpenLDAP 2.4.6 Released - The first stable release in the 2.4 branch - OpenLDAP Performance Results published (Special thanks to our friends on the Samba Project and at AMD) - Hot off the press Google Announcement - Selected user issues and solutions discussed (covering the past 2 weeks, as issue 1 excluded this). Thanks, Gavin. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. OpenLDAP Engineering Team. E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org Community developed LDAP software. http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 1

Re: OpenLDAP 2.4.6
by Gavin Henry 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

<quote who="Tony Earnshaw"> > I've built rpms for and and installed OL 2.4.6 on my Fedora FC6 > test/production machine. The rpms were built from a Mandriva cooker srpm > built by Buchan Milne, with a slightly adapted spec file, which > adaptations I've let Buchan know about. > > Experience to date suggests that 2.4.6 is a drop in for the 2.3.39 that > it was running, with the exception that a few of the spec file > parameters had to be changed for FC6, but more importantly that a couple > of the basic ACLs had to be changed: It seems that 2.4 is more picky > about ACLs than 2.3. Yes, I noticed that with a: by anonymous auth on 2.3 this was ok, in 2.4 it was treated as "by auth". I've yet to report this properly with some evidence to back my thoughts up. > > It's running well for basic user authentication, smtp and IMAP and > coping as well as 2.3.39 did. Now I've got it running, I'm looking at > the Administrator's Guide for 2.4. This is a fantastic, hugely amended > and augmented document in comparison to the 2.3 Admin Guide. I suppose > it was Gavin Henry (http://www.suretecsystems.com/) who is responsible > for it but can't be sure. With a few patches here and there. I started in April/May, but it's been a slow 6 or so months, squeezing in bits. There's still a lot to complete, but the PDF of 2.3 vs 2.4 has 80 pages difference ;-) Let's hope others read it. > Anyway, it's going to cost me a couple of days > to go through it and see what more OL 2.4 can mean for my production > systems than 2.3. > > I trust than Buchan will provide an srpm for Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora > people at http://staff.telkomsa.net/packages before long. > > Best, > > --Tonni > > -- > Tony Earnshaw > Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl >

1 0

When to delete client content during RFC4533 synchronization?
by Erik van Oosten 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Hello, I am writing a RFC4533 client implementation based on JLDAP. I have a question on how to interpret the rfc as a client, and secondly how the OpenLDAP server interprets it. My question is: how can the client determine that it must delete content at the end of the refresh stage, when a refreshAndPersist is requested with an initial cookie? The problem is that I can not defer from the rfc how I can differentiate between a server that sends an initial content poll and a server that sends a content update poll. The RFC specifies that the server may choose to ignore the initial cookie and the reloadHint flag, so either poll mode may be choosen by the server. In the case of a refreshOnly the RFC is clear: when refreshDeletes of syncDoneValue is FALSE, content that is not added, changed, or indicated as present must be deleted from the client copy (section 1.3.1 paragraph 8). However, in the case of a refreshAndPersist, there is no similar flag in the SyncInfoMessage that ends the refresh stage. SyncInfoMessage does have values named refreshDelete and refreshDeletes, but these are used for other purposes (see section 3.4.1 and section 3.3.2 paragraph 7 and 9). Am I missing something? What is the behavior of the OpenLDAP server in this matter? Does it ever ignore the reloadHint of the sync request control? Regards, Erik. -- Erik van Oosten http://2008.rubyenrails.nl/ http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/

2 8

OpenLDAP 2.4.6
by Tony Earnshaw 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

I've built rpms for and and installed OL 2.4.6 on my Fedora FC6 test/production machine. The rpms were built from a Mandriva cooker srpm built by Buchan Milne, with a slightly adapted spec file, which adaptations I've let Buchan know about. Experience to date suggests that 2.4.6 is a drop in for the 2.3.39 that it was running, with the exception that a few of the spec file parameters had to be changed for FC6, but more importantly that a couple of the basic ACLs had to be changed: It seems that 2.4 is more picky about ACLs than 2.3. It's running well for basic user authentication, smtp and IMAP and coping as well as 2.3.39 did. Now I've got it running, I'm looking at the Administrator's Guide for 2.4. This is a fantastic, hugely amended and augmented document in comparison to the 2.3 Admin Guide. I suppose it was Gavin Henry (http://www.suretecsystems.com/) who is responsible for it but can't be sure. Anyway, it's going to cost me a couple of days to go through it and see what more OL 2.4 can mean for my production systems than 2.3. I trust than Buchan will provide an srpm for Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora people at http://staff.telkomsa.net/packages before long. Best, --Tonni -- Tony Earnshaw Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl

1 0

New performance results
by Howard Chu 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

OpenLDAP 2.3 has been unrivaled as the fastest directory server in the world for the past two+ years, but today that's no longer true. Now OpenLDAP 2.4 takes over as the most scalable, most reliable, highest performing directory server. Thanks to our friends on the Samba Project and at AMD, we've been able to do some new benchmarks on an AMD quad-processor server. We tested OpenLDAP (2.4.5 and 2.4.6) on Linux as well as Microsoft's AD offerings on Windows 2003, and the results are now summarized on the Connexitor blog. http://connexitor.com/blog/ (The AD numbers aren't all in yet, we're still waiting for the directory import to finish.) -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 2

Re: setting up admin password on openldap
by Gavin Henry 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

<quote who="Naufal Sheikh"> > Vi ... Come on, what sort of answer is that? How can we possibly help if you don't provide concrete information. What command do you type to make the modification? ldapmodify? What were the exact arguments? > > On 10/30/07, Gavin Henry <ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com> wrote: >> >> <quote who="Naufal Sheikh"> >> > Hello Piotr, >> > >> > I tried to do what you said. Initially my root dn just contained >> > cn=nsadmin, >> > and thus I caould not start slapd. Then I added to rootdn my suffix as >> > well, >> > and unhashed the rootpw line in slapd.conf. I tried using a clear text >> > "secret" as well as hashed value created through slappasswd and >> putting >> it >> > in the slapd.conf. In both cases, when I modify the entry and it asks >> me >> > to >> > give ldap password, it says invalid credentials. >> >> How are you trying to modify? What tool? >> >

7 14

Re: 2.4.6 ACLs and Extented Operations
by Gavin Henry 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

<quote who="Howard Chu"> > Gavin Henry wrote: >> Now, when we browse our Samba PDC that worked fine on 2.3.39, we are >> seeing: >> >> conn=63 fd=32 ACCEPT from IP=X.X.X.X:39211 (IP=0.0.0.0:389) >> conn=63 op=0 EXT oid=1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037 >> conn=63 op=0 do_extended: unsupported operation "1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.20037" >> conn=63 op=0 RESULT tag=120 err=2 text=unsupported extended operation >> >> and it goes very slowly. >> >> Any ideas? > > That's a StartTLS request. slapd will reject that request if you didn't > configure TLS certificates. Check your client config to see why it's > requesting it, or your server config... Aye, realised this now after using my head. Our Samba conf has start_tls in it. What an idiot ;-) No problem with 2.4.6 here, just brain dead users ;-)

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-software