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
17 matches
Mail list logo
