[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: ldapuri vs. ldaphost
Am Sun, 9 Feb 2020 12:28:53 +0000
schrieb Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>:
> 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.
That is rather strange, while (the escape sequences are zsh related)
ldapurl -H ldap://localhost/o=avci,c=de\?\+\?\?
scheme: ldap
host: localhost
port: 389
dn: o=avci,c=de
selector: +
scope: base
ldapurl -H ldap://127.0.0.1/o=avci,c=de\?\+\?\?
scheme: ldap
host: 127.0.0.1
port: 389
dn: o=avci,c=de
selector: +
scope: base
ldapurl -H ldap://::1/o=avci,c=de\?\+\?\?
unable to parse URI "ldap://::1/o=avci,c=de?+??";
It seems this is more likely ipv6 related.
-Dieter
--
Dieter Klünter | Systemberatung
http://sys4.de
GPG Key ID: E9ED159B
53°37'09,95"N
10°08'02,42"E