LDAP how is Failover done?

[Alejandro Imass]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alejandro Imass <aimass-EzYyMjUkBrFWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Ivan Avery Frey

[..]

> A characteristic case would be where an organization wants integrated
> control over a number of systems that feed off of LDAP, and has
> several locations, each of which is sufficiently "trusted" to be
> considered an authority..


Yes indeed a good case for MM. But in your opinion isn't better to
delegate control and distribute the different parts of the DIT where
required instead of replicating the whole DIT to the remote sites. I
_think_ this MM ideas come mostly from MS AD's ways of doing things
instead of properly defining a distributed DIT and use referrals or
chaining instead? When people come from the MS AD world they usually
see the Directory as a simple People, Computers, and Groups DIT
structure, instead of a rich DIT that combines the best of the X500
org-based pattern with the DNS pattern.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists