On 5.4.2013 16:32, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:54 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 5.4.2013 14:38, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:29 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
Pavel Brezina discovered that the design doesn't specify how client
should behave if expected _location.clien
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:54 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 5.4.2013 14:38, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:29 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Pavel Brezina discovered that the design doesn't specify how client
> >>> should behave if expected _location.client.example.com. reco
On 5.4.2013 14:38, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:29 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
Pavel Brezina discovered that the design doesn't specify how client
should behave if expected _location.client.example.com. record
doesn't
exist.
I propose to let this aspect on implementer's discret
On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 14:29 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
> >
> > Pavel Brezina discovered that the design doesn't specify how client
> > should behave if expected _location.client.example.com. record
> doesn't
> > exist.
> >
> > I propose to let this aspect on implementer's discretion (or
> configur
On 04/05/2013 02:22 PM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 23.1.2013 02:13, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 18:30 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 22.1.2013 16:01, Simo Sorce wrote:
Replying to myself for the beginning:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:23 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> Server Implementat
On 23.1.2013 02:13, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 18:30 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 22.1.2013 16:01, Simo Sorce wrote:
Replying to myself for the beginning:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:23 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> Server Implementation
>>> TODO: interaction with DNSSEC
>>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 07:33:53PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:46 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:19:30AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:02 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:21AM -0500, Simo Sorce wr
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 18:30 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> On 22.1.2013 16:01, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> Replying to myself for the beginning:
>
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:23 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> >>> Server Implementation
> >>> TODO: interaction with DNSSEC
> >> That it *very* important par
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:46 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:19:30AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:02 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:21AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:19:30AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:02 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:21AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > > > Before we start talking about using DNS for this purpos
On 22.1.2013 16:01, Simo Sorce wrote:
Replying to myself for the beginning:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:23 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>>> Server Implementation
>>> TODO: interaction with DNSSEC
>> That it *very* important part. I have fear from so many dynamic things
inside.
There is less dynamic
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 17:02 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:21AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > > Before we start talking about using DNS for this purpose, have you
> > > considered
> > > to use IP anycast for this? You c
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:21AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > Before we start talking about using DNS for this purpose, have you
> > considered
> > to use IP anycast for this? You can simply create multiple servers
> > with same IP
> > address
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 16:18 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> Before we start talking about using DNS for this purpose, have you
> considered
> to use IP anycast for this? You can simply create multiple servers
> with same IP
> address on different places over the world. After that you announce
> this IP
>
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 07:59:02PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Hello FreeIPA developers and other followers,
>
> we've have thought for quite a while about how to best implement
> location based discovery for our clients so that we can easily redirect
> group of clients to specific servers in order
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:23 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
> Creating per-server _locations sub-tree is very easy with current code:
> Simply
> copy&paste new bind-dyndb-ldap section to /etc/named.conf and point base DN
> to
> some server-specific part of LDAP tree:
>
> dynamic-db "ipa-local" {
>
On 22.1.2013 01:59, Simo Sorce wrote:
Hello FreeIPA developers and other followers,
Roaming/Remote clients
Roaming clients or Remote clients have one big problem, although they
may have a default preferred location they move across networks and the
definition of 'location' and 'closest' server
Hello FreeIPA developers and other followers,
we've have thought for quite a while about how to best implement
location based discovery for our clients so that we can easily redirect
group of clients to specific servers in order to better use resources
and keep traffic local to clients.
However a
18 matches
Mail list logo
