On (22/04/16 15:57), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:35:52PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 02:58:06PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> > On (11/04/16 13:39), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:12:51PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: >> > >> ehlo, >> > >> >> > >> following patch help me to find out issues with GPO. >> > >> I think it might be useful also in other cases. >> > >> >> > >> But ideal would be if fail-over code would print port as well. >> > >> ATM "0" is logged as a port with AD. >> > > >> > >That's because 'port' has a special meaning in the failover code. >> > >It's not the networking port, but just an abstract object that binds >> > >together >> > >services. And we chose server 0 in the past for AD and IPA because we >> > >wanted to make sure that identity lookups and authentication are always >> > >performed against the same server to make sure we don't hit replication >> > >issues. Otherwise we might be talking to one DC for LDAP lookups and >> > >another for KDC.. >> > Thank you for explanation. >> > It was very confusing to me that "server" has port but "service" >> > does not have a port. I would expect other way. >> > >> > And I would say ti might be confusing for users when they try to >> > troubleshoot >> > something. We might use different name then "port" >> >> Yes, feel free to file a ticket to rename the internal terminology. I >> already saw some users confused about using port 0, too. > >btw your patch works fine, so ACK, but I'll add your redhat.com address >before pushing and also wait for CI to satisfy the protocol :) I noticed wrong email as well but I expected some comments and next version of patch :-)
LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
