Re: Antw: Re: Upgrading from 2.4.26 to 2.4.41: Stricter checks prevent startup?

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@symas.com> schrieb am 29.10.2018 um 17:03 in
Nachricht <F73964C4E931CAA3C41163BE@[192.168.1.39]>:
> --On Monday, October 29, 2018 9:03 AM +0100 Ulrich Windl 
> <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, you are right, regarding the docs, but still I wonder, why all the
>> different URIs for a multi-homed LDAP-server should not use the same ID:
>> If the ID designates the database where the data came from, that would
>> make sense. Forcing different server IDs for every interface the server
>> uses does not make that much sense to me.
> 
> That's not how things work and that is not what the documentation is 
> saying.  You specify only a single serverID and URI *per server* not per 
> URI that the server uses.

I don't quite understand (replicated cn=config for MMR):
Assume a server has two IP addresses and names n1.d.o, n2.d.o associated with
it. So the
olcServerID: 1 ldap://n1.d.o:389
olcServerID: 1 ldap://n2.d.o:389
...other servers...
is illegal. How would the correct statement look like? How would it look like
if I also include ldaps: URIs?

> 
>>> " Non‑zero  IDs are  required when using multimaster replication and
>>> each  master must have a unique non‑zero ID."
>>>
>>> Note the words "must have" and "unique".
>>
>> Yes, that's the specification, but does it really make sense?
> 
> Yes.
> 

Regards,
Ulrich