[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] CLDAPv3
Leif Johansson writes:
> Thorild Selen wrote:
> > * The server is not stateless; it has to keep track of some data for
> > each client. This means that it won't be as lightweight as CLDAP,
> > from the server's point of view.
> >
> Granted but that is hardly an issue with modern servers.
That depends on how much you want it to scale, of course. For normal
loads you are probably correct, whatever a "normal load" is.
> I am not sure about that but even if it is true most clients start life
> by asking
> about various capabilities anyway... The usefullness of disconnected
> operation
> is (imho) all about managing large amounts of tcp connections or not.
So with your proposal it will have to manage a large number of UDP
"connections" instead. What you have described is not connectionless
LDAP, but LDAPv3 over a connectionless transport. There are still
connections in some sense, you just move the job of managing the
connections from one layer to another, probably with some gains
depending on how lousy your TCP/IP implementation is.
(If it is so troublesome to manage many simultaneous TCP connections,
then maybe one should ask why; the state for managing a TCP connection
might well be smaller than the data you have to keep track of for each
client using your LDAP/UDP. If LDAP/UDP is still that much better --
perhaps your implementation of TCP is the culprit, rather than LDAP.)
> >Avoiding this would be more useful, in my opinion. The big win with
> >connectionless LDAP ought to be that it is even more lightweight than
> >LDAP over TCP; no unneeded packages going back and forth, no extra
> >state to maintain for the server. If that isn't so important, then you
> >could just as well use LDAP over some connection-oriented protocol,
> >such as TCP, instead.
> >
> Again I don't agree that this is the point (if indeed there is a point)
> to this
> exercise.
Perhaps we're talking past each other, since we seem to have different
goals in the first place; you want to run LDAPv3 (as true to the
original as possible) over UDP, while I'm looking for an extremely
lightweight protocol for directory lookups. (That's the point, and
that was the point for CLDAP as described by RFC1798.) These goals are
close to each other but different; the most appropriate solutions may
therefore be different.
Thorild Selén
Datorföreningen Update / Update Computer Club, Uppsala, SE
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext