directory-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm O hEigeartaigh <cohei...@apache.org>
Subject Re: A query on kerberos testing via annotations
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:10:17 GMT
> That could be a good addition to the annotation though. Not terribly
useful except for protocol using TCP and UDP (like kerberos...)

Ok, I will take a look and see if I can contribute a patch for this.

One further query on this issue: I've noticed that the ports generated for
the LDAP server tend to be fairly random, whereas the ports generated for
the KDC server always tend to start at 1024. Is there a reason for this?
Ideally the latter would be spread at random as well, to avoid issues with
hanging processes on build machines, etc.

Colm.


On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Le 28/11/14 16:30, Colm O hEigeartaigh a écrit :
> > Thanks for your reply Kiran.
> >
> > I figured out the problem - the KDCServer annotation was configured with
> > two transports (TCP/UDP) which were using separate ports (as both were
> > unspecified). Using "super.getKdcServer().getTcpPort" as the port for
> > krb5.conf does not work, as it requires the UDP port.
> >
> > So I got it working by just configuring a single UDP Transport +
> > substituting the port given by
> > super.getKdcServer().getTransports()[0].getPort() into the krb5.conf.
> >
> > Is there a way that I am missing to have both TCP + UDP protocols share a
> > random port, when configuring a KDCServer via annotations?
>
> I don't think it's supported. When you specifiy 0 (or -1, I don't
> exactly remember), it generates a random port for each transport.
>
> That could be a good addition to the annotation though. Not terribly
> useful except for protocol using TCP and UDP (like kerberos...)
>
>


-- 
Colm O hEigeartaigh

Talend Community Coder
http://coders.talend.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message