[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: ldapuri vs. ldaphost
- To: Dieter Klünter <dieter@dkluenter.de>, Openldap-ML <openldap-technical@openldap.org>
- Subject: Re: ldapuri vs. ldaphost
- From: Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 12:28:53 +0000
- Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmcc-2-mta-1.zmailcloud.com 6C1A8CEDB2
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=symas.com; s=37C7994C-28CA-11EA-A30F-68F90BB9D764; t=1581251336; bh=IRHmgJPYqU4F+dt5oQQE6FJFBklwUJD0ICrbJP0qotc=; h=To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; b=Ne3jZPWYcksmSrrPEj1+mzFTg6kP4k3UY2rnoHy0lMVRia6RpBEz8Uab+o+dwqXf+ fqtcChbymSxLRN2DiyzDUVV3K3KquQNG+eADvmAPw+60an9vcjHX3gAxY3RHEFn7C9 G1PBCJ/AwSPCV4BfiwwA4JZpb78Q/NIw8C0DJ3UFBMSTOIK1ERM46MbOy3plMKWchf 8UUdUU6ZvZmD8A6xcGX86VLOwqxF7kIo0YKaii6wE0+AX6i3xx/3xGjYR/NPj9hQyi fhtr7pkRHjmXrJ841z6fJC3SduKW0FNSj1qlp+Ojp+31pIRlgJ2S6r27XuNSIO9JYN DZ0/kefhfTREw==
- In-reply-to: <20200209124744.4b1eebf6@pink.fritz.box>
- References: <20200209124744.4b1eebf6@pink.fritz.box>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53
Dieter Klünter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The manual pages ldapsearch(1) et.al. describe ldapuri abbriviation as
> -H and ldaphost abbriviation -h. Both, ldapuri and ldpaphost
> description might be of host name or host ip. If ldapuri is a ipv6
> address, an error occurs:
> Could not parse LDAP URI(s)=2001:16b8:c115:9f00:44ff:f15b:11d1:e620 (3
>
> ldapsearch -YGSSAPI -H 2001:16b8:c115:9f00:44ff:f15b:11d1:e620 -b "" -s
> base +. Just for verification one may use ipv6 address ::1
>
> The question is: must ldapuri contain a hostname, or would a
> hostaddress be sufficient. While ldaphost accepts hostname and
> hostaddress?
ldapuri must contain a URI. That is why it is called what it is.
A bare hostname or IP address are not valid URIs.
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/