Re: overlay unique - multiple suffixes

[Andreas Schoe <andi@gfz-potsdam.de>]

Yes,

there are different reasons for this strict distinction. Especially for 
security reasons.

I think I have to choose the same naming context for both suffixes, if I 
would create a meta database and put slapo-unique there.

Is it an alternative? If it is, could I create a meta database with 
different naming contexts?

Aaron Richton schrieb:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008, Michael Ströder wrote:
>
> > > I have two suffixes with two bdb backends, in the first suffix you 
> > > find internal and in the second suffix you find external users.
> >
> > You could glue the suffixes together under a common suffix if it does 
> > not violate your security requirements and place slapo-unique there.
>
> Presumably, the two suffix values are known in advance as constants. 
> Therefore it should be fairly trivial to write ACLs along the lines of:
>
> access to dn.subtree="ou=Area1,dc=suffix" [mostlyAllow]
> access to dn.subtree="ou=Area2,dc=suffix" [mostlyAllow]
> access to dn.subtree="dc=suffix" [mostlyDeny]
>
> which should allow slapo-unique to be used (under access internal to 
> slapd) while not granting additional access to the external world.