Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:21:23 +0100 (CET) From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Terry Lambert <terry@whistle.com> Cc: small@FreeBSD.ORG, Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl> Subject: Re: Unified Configuration Interface Message-ID: <XFMail.981028122123.asmodai@wxs.nl> In-Reply-To: <3636195C.535@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27-Oct-98 Terry Lambert wrote: > [ ... transactional, possible to expose via standard protocol ... ] > > Andrzej Bialecki wrote: >> Sounds like a good idea (I mean, the transactional model). >> Also, I would stress the word "possible" in the above statement >> - thus far all implementations of LDAP or SNMP agents I've seen >> are heavy-weight (from my point of view). > > Mine too; I wasn't thinking in terms of a server, necessarily, > though, since I could see the following from an embedded system: > > 1) SLP request: where is the LDAP server? > > 2) LDAP request: where is my configuration data? > > 3) <OTHER> request: Please manage me via data changes > in the LDAP data store, and tell me when changes > have taken place so I can reconfigure myself. Have to read up on SLP, but afaik SLP will be/is used by Novell in NetWare 5 with Native IP to replace SAP. So if I may base my conclusions on SAP, it will request per a broadcast certain servers/services, get a reply back and then use those services via SLP or just by making TCP connections or just dumping UDP datagrams? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig through that RFC. > That would make it most probably a client implementation only. > I mention ACAP because it's a fairly small client implementation > as well. Having used ACAP I can say it's a fun protocol ;) > The main issue is that there needs to be someone, somewhere, > to "be the king"; whether this just means a machine to export > an NIS+ service, or whether this means SNMP or LDAP is undefined. Well, ye mean here the MAster server that is the general backup provider shouldst departemental/floor servers not be reachable? Or am I thinking in way the wrong direction? > [ ... List of ?RFC's specifying MIB's ... ] > > ] Ugh.. Yeah.... This is pretty extensive list. But you make a > ] good point... > ] > ] What worries me, though, is that the only one (free) > ] implementation of snmp agent that I'm aware of is, well, more > ] than bulky... Ok, but basing on the equipment we use at work (HP OpenView) I tend to prefer SNMP in use with MIBs. Although we also write out own shellscripts for that. >> I'm not familiar with LDAP that much... Is there any >> implementation of it which takes less than, say, 200kB? > > My current SLAPD (LDAP server) is 160k, linked shared against > libc_r and libcrypt, so I think for a static version, the > answer is probably "no" (but it could be crunched, and I > don't know the impact of libc_r vs. libc on a crunched disk). As far as I can see in future, we are going to have to make major modifications to kernel sources and the likes... > But the point of mentioning RFC 2307 wasn't to specifically > advocate LDAP; it was to point at a MIB that defines most of > the things needed for storing all NIS+ data. The MIB is, as > above, schema information, totally seperate from implementation. Heh, schema sounds so alike to Novell's NDS schema ;) --- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven/Asmodai asmodai(at)wxs.nl Junior Network/Security Specialist FreeBSD & picoBSD: The Power to Serve... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.981028122123.asmodai>