Search Results

Search found 312 results on 13 pages for 'rfc'.

Page 4/13 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Firewall blocks FTP PASV response

  - by harper

  I have an FTP server that supports passive server mode (using PASV command). This works fine with Windows XP. When I want to access this server from Windows Vista or Windows 7 with firewall enabled I experience an immediate connection shutdown. A reset packet is sent to the server, and the socket is signaled that the server has reset the connection (which is not true). The problem disappears when the firewall is disabled. Connections to other FTP servers work correctly. The difference is that the server's response to PASV does not enclose the address field with parentheses. This is legal as documented in RFC-959 and RFC-1132. How can I configure the firewall to stop this bad behavior?

  Read the article

• How far should one take e-mail address validation?

  - by Mike Tomasello

  I'm wondering how far people should take the validation of e-mail address. My field is primarily web-development, but this applies anywhere. I've seen a few approaches: simply checking if there is an "@" present, which is dead simply but of course not that reliable. a more complex regex test for standard e-mail formats a full regex against RFC 2822 - the problem with this is that often an e-mail address might be valid but it is probably not what the user meant DNS validation SMTP validation As many people might know (but many don't), e-mail addresses can have a lot of strange variation that most people don't usually consider (see RFC 2822 3.4.1), but you have to think about the goals of your validation: are you simply trying to ensure that an e-mail address can be sent to an address, or that it is what the user probably meant to put in (which is unlikely in a lot of the more obscure cases of otherwise 'valid' addresses). An option I've considered is simply giving a warning with a more esoteric address but still allowing the request to go through, but this does add more complexity to a form and most users are likely to be confused. While DNS validation / SMTP validation seem like no-brainers, I foresee problems where the DNS server/SMTP server is temporarily down and a user is unable to register somewhere, or the user's SMTP server doesn't support the required features. How might some experienced developers out here handle this? Are there any other approaches than the ones I've listed? Edit: I completely forgot the most obvious of all, sending a confirmation e-mail! Thanks to answerers for pointing that one out. Yes, this one is pretty foolproof, but it does require extra hassle on the part of everyone involved. The user has to fetch some e-mail, and the developer needs to remember user data before they're even confirmed as valid.

  Read the article

• Does (should?) changing the URI scheme name change the semantics?

  - by Doug

  If we take: http://example.com/foo is it fair to say that: ftp://example.com/foo .. points to the same resource, just using a different mechanism for resolving it (and of course possibly a different representation, but perhaps not)? This came to light in a discussion we were having surrounding some internal tooling with Git. We have to process some Git repositories, and they come to use as "git@{authority}/{path}" , however the library we're using to interface with them doesn't support the git protocol. I suggested that we should make the service robust in of that it tries to use HTTP or SSH, in essence, discovering what protocols/schemes are supported for resolving the repository at {path} under each {authority}. This was met with some criticism: "We don't know if that's the same repository". My response was: "It had better be!" Looking at RFC 3986, I see this excerpt: URI "resolution" is the process of determining an access mechanism and the appropriate parameters necessary to dereference a URI; this resolution may require several iterations. To use that access mechanism to perform an action on the URI's resource is to "dereference" the URI. Which makes me think that the resolution process is permitted to try different protocols, because: Although many URI schemes are named after protocols, this does not imply that use of these URIs will result in access to the resource via the named protocol. The only concern I have, I guess, is that I only see reference to the notion of changing protocols when it comes to traversing relationships: it is possible for a single set of hypertext documents to be simultaneously accessible and traversable via each of the "file", "http", and "ftp" schemes if the documents refer to each other with relative references. I'm inclined to think I'm wrong in my initial beliefs, because the Normalization and Comparison section of said RFC doesn't mention any way of treating two URIs as equivalent if they use different schemes. It seems like schemes named/based on IP protocols ought to have this notion, at least?

  Read the article

• "NOT_SUPPORTED_BY_GUI" Exception in JCo

  - by cedar715

  We are having a BAPI that uploads the specified document to SAP. The BAPI accept three parameters: ID, FILE_LOC and FOLDER_NAME. And I'm setting the values as follows in the JCo code: JCO.ParameterList paramList = function.getImportParameterList(); paramList.setValue("101XS1", "EXTERNAL_ID"); paramList.setValue("tmp", "FOLDER_NAME"); paramList.setValue("D:/upload/foo.txt", "FILE_LOCATION"); But when I'm trying to execute the BAPI, am getting the following exception: com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Exception: (104) RFC_ERROR_SYSTEM_FAILURE: Exception condition "NOT_SUPPORTED_BY_GUI" raised. at com.sap.mw.jco.rfc.MiddlewareRFC$Client.nativeExecute(Native Method) at com.sap.mw.jco.rfc.MiddlewareRFC$Client.execute(MiddlewareRFC.java:1242) at com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Client.execute(JCO.java:3816) at com.sap.mw.jco.JCO$Client.execute(JCO.java:3261) The same BAPI is working fine if I execute through thick client(SAP Logon). But through JCo, its giving this error.

  Read the article

• IPv6 multicast addresses: Is the Group ID field effectively 112 bits or 32 bits?

  - by Jeremy Friesner

  Hi all, I'm trying to understand the rules for choosing an IPv6 multicast address Group ID, and the RFC seems somewhat inconsistent. For example, in RFC 2373 section 2.7 this diagram is shown: | 8 | 4 | 4 | 112 bits | +------ -+----+----+---------------------------------------------+ |11111111|flgs|scop| group ID | +--------+----+----+---------------------------------------------+ ... but then in section 2.7.2 it shows this: | 8 | 4 | 4 | 80 bits | 32 bits | +------ -+----+----+---------------------------+-----------------+ |11111111|flgs|scop| reserved must be zero | group ID | +--------+----+----+---------------------------+-----------------+ So my question is, are the upper 80 bits of the Group ID field usable or not? If they are usable, is it only under certain circumstances (e.g. when using non-Ethernet networking technology?) What problems should I expect to experience if I set these bits when multicasting over an Ethernet LAN?

  Read the article

• Optimized .htaccess???

  - by StackOverflowNewbie

  I'd appreciate some feedback on the compression and caching configuration below. Trying to come up with a general purpose, optimized compression and caching configuration. If possible: Note your PageSpeed and YSlow grades Add configuration to your .htaccess Clear your cache Note your PageSpeed and YSlow grades to see if there are any improvements (or degradations) NOTE: Make sure you have appropriate modules loaded. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks. # JavaScript MIME type issues: # 1. Apache uses "application/javascript": http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/1.3.x/conf/mime.types # 2. IIS uses "application/x-javascript": http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb742440.aspx # 3. SVG specification says it is text/ecmascript: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-SVG-20010904/script.html#ScriptElement # 4. HTML specification says it is text/javascript: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/interact/scripts.html#h-18.2.2.2 # 5. "text/ecmascript" and "text/javascript" are considered obsolete: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Compression #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <IfModule mod_deflate.c> AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/xhtml+xml AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/xml AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/atom+xml AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/css AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/html AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/plain AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/xml # The following MIME types are in the process of registration AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/xslt+xml AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE image/svg+xml # The following MIME types are NOT registered AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/mathml+xml AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/rss+xml # Deal with JavaScript MIME type issues AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/javascript AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE application/x-javascript AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/ecmascript AddOutputFilterByType DEFLATE text/javascript </IfModule> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Expires header #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <IfModule mod_expires.c> # 1. Set Expires to a minimum of 1 month, and preferably up to 1 year, in the future # (but not more than 1 year as that would violate the RFC guidelines) # 2. Use "Expires" over "Cache-Control: max-age" because it is more widely accepted ExpiresActive on ExpiresByType application/pdf "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType application/x-shockwave-flash "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/bmp "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/gif "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/jpeg "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/png "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/svg+xml "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/tiff "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType image/x-icon "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType text/css "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType video/x-flv "access plus 1 year" # Deal with JavaScript MIME type issues ExpiresByType application/javascript "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType application/x-javascript "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType text/ecmascript "access plus 1 year" ExpiresByType text/javascript "access plus 1 year" # Probably better to explicitly declare MIME types than to have a blanket rule for expiration # Uncomment below if you disagree #ExpiresDefault "access plus 1 year" </IfModule> #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # Caching #------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <IfModule mod_headers.c> <FilesMatch "\.(bmp|css|flv|gif|ico|jpg|jpeg|js|pdf|png|svg|swf|tif|tiff)$"> Header add Cache-Control "public" Header unset ETag Header unset Last-Modified FileETag none </FilesMatch> </IfModule>

  Read the article

• Unicode characters in URLs

  - by Pekka

  In 2010, would you serve URLs containing UTF-8 characters in a large web portal? Unicode characters are forbidden as per the RFC on URLs (see here). They would have to be percent encoded to be standards compliant. My main point, though, is serving the unencoded characters for the sole purpose of having nice-looking URLs, so percent encoding is out. All major browsers seem to be parsing those URLs okay no matter what the RFC says. My general impression, though, is that it gets very shaky when leaving the domain of web browsers: URLs getting copy+pasted into text files, E-Mails, even Web sites with a different encoding HTTP Client libraries Exotic browsers, RSS readers Is my impression correct that trouble is to be expected here, and thus it's not a practical solution (yet) if you're serving a non-technical audience and it's important that all your links work properly even if quoted and passed on? Is there some magic way of serving nice-looking URLs in HTML http://www.example.com/düsseldorf?neighbourhood=Lörick that can be copy+pasted with the special characters intact, but work correctly when re-used in older clients?

  Read the article

• Multiple signatures in S/MIME

  - by m0sa

  Is it possible to sign a MIME email (RFC 2822) multiple times using S/MIME, so that all signatures are verifiable and retrievable?

  Read the article

• How do you validate a URL with a regular expression in Python?

  - by Zachary Spencer

  I'm building a Google App Engine app, and I have a class to represent an RSS Feed. I have a method called setUrl which is part of the feed class. It accepts a url as an input. I'm trying to use the re python module to validate off of the RFC 3986 Reg-ex (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt) Below is a snipped which should work, right? I'm incredibly new to Python and have been beating my head against this for the past 3 days. p = re.compile('^(([^:/?#]+):)?(//([^/?#]*))?([^?#]*)(\?([^#]*))?(#(.*))?') m = p.match(url) if m: self.url = url return url

  Read the article

• How can I persist a large Perl object for re-use between runs?

  - by Alnitak

  I've got a large XML file, which takes over 40 seconds to parse with XML::Simple. I'd like to be able to cache the resulting parsed object so that on the next run I can just retrieve the parsed object and not reparse the whole file. I've looked at using Data::Dumper but the documentation is a bit lacking on how to store and retrieve its output from disk files. Other classes I've looked at (e.g. Cache::Cache appear designed for storage of many small objects, not a single large one. Can anyone recommend a module designed for this? EDIT. The XML file is ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-index.xml On my Mac Pro benchmark figures for reading the entire file with XML::Simple vs Storable are: s/iter test1 test2 test1 47.8 -- -100% test2 0.148 32185% --

  Read the article

• Correct syntax of a HTTP 100 Continue response

  - by PartlyCloudy

  For me, one of the weakest points of the HTTP 1.1 RFC and the various implementations around is how to deal with 100 Continue headers. I searched on the web for a while and had a look at different implementations. However, there is one thing I'm not sure of. what is the correct syntax of a 100 Continue message? Several sources claim, that this must be a single response line without any further header lines. However, I can't find that in the RFC 2616 reflected. So what is right? HTTP/1.1 100 Continue or HTTP/1.1 100 Continue [Additional Headers…] ?

  Read the article

• Does TCP actually define 'TCP server' and 'TCP clients'? [closed]

  - by mjn

  In the Wikipedia article, TCP communication is explained using the terms 'client' and 'server'. It also uses the word 'peers'. But TCP actually does not define "TCP clients" and "TCP servers" - In the RFC 675 document (SPECIFICATION OF INTERNET TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM), the word "client" never appears. The RFC explains that TCP is used to connect processes over ports (sockets), and that 'A pair of sockets form a CONNECTION which can be used to carry data in either direction [i.e. full duplex]. Calling the originating party the "client" seems to be common practice. But this client/server communication model is not always applicable to TCP communication. For example take peer-to-peer networks. Calling all processes which open a socket (and wait for incoming connections from peers) "TCP servers", sounds wrong to me. I would not call my uncle's telephone device a "Telephony server" if I dial his phone number and he picks up.

  Read the article

• Why my laptop sends ARP request to itself ?

  - by user58859

  I have just started to learn about protocols. While studying the packets in wireshark, I came across a ARP request sent by my machine to my own IP. Here is the details of the packet : No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 15 1.463563 IntelCor_aa:aa:aa Broadcast ARP Who has 192.168.1.34? Tell 0.0.0.0 Frame 15: 42 bytes on wire (336 bits), 42 bytes captured (336 bits) Arrival Time: Jan 7, 2011 18:51:43.886089000 India Standard Time Epoch Time: 1294406503.886089000 seconds [Time delta from previous captured frame: 0.123389000 seconds] [Time delta from previous displayed frame: 0.123389000 seconds] [Time since reference or first frame: 1.463563000 seconds] Frame Number: 15 Frame Length: 42 bytes (336 bits) Capture Length: 42 bytes (336 bits) [Frame is marked: False] [Frame is ignored: False] [Protocols in frame: eth:arp] [Coloring Rule Name: ARP] [Coloring Rule String: arp] Ethernet II, Src: IntelCor_aa:aa:aa (aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa), Dst: Broadcast (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) Destination: Broadcast (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) Address: Broadcast (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) .... ...1 .... .... .... .... = IG bit: Group address (multicast/broadcast) .... ..1. .... .... .... .... = LG bit: Locally administered address (this is NOT the factory default) Source: IntelCor_aa:aa:aa (aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa) Address: IntelCor_aa:aa:aa (aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa) .... ...0 .... .... .... .... = IG bit: Individual address (unicast) .... ..0. .... .... .... .... = LG bit: Globally unique address (factory default) Type: ARP (0x0806) Address Resolution Protocol (request) Hardware type: Ethernet (0x0001) Protocol type: IP (0x0800) Hardware size: 6 Protocol size: 4 Opcode: request (0x0001) [Is gratuitous: False] Sender MAC address: IntelCor_aa:aa:aa (aa:aa:aa:aa:aa:aa) Sender IP address: 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) Target MAC address: 00:00:00_00:00:00 (00:00:00:00:00:00) Target IP address: 192.168.1.34 (192.168.1.34) Here the sender's mac address is mine(Here I have hiden my mac address). target IP is mine. Why my machine is sending ARP request to itself? I found 3 packets of this type. There was no ARP reply for these packets. Can anybody explain me why it is? (My operating system is windows-7. I am directly connected to a wifi modem. I got these packets as soon as I started my connection.) I want one suggestion also. many places I read that RFC's are enough for study about protocols. I studied the RFC 826 on ARP. I personally feel that is not enough at all. Any suggestion regarding this? Is there more then 1 RFC for a protocol? I want to study about the protocols in very detail. Can anybody guide me for this? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Identifying the cause of my DNS failure (domain not propagating)

  - by thejartender

  I have set up a DNS server with the help of two helpful tutorials: http://linuxconfig.org/linux-dns-server-bind-configuration http://ulyssesonline.com/2007/11/07/how-to-setup-a-dns-server-in-ubuntu/ I am using: Ubuntu Bind9 and had issues I tried negating on my own thanks to a question I posted here earlier that pointed out my mistake of using rfc 1918 addresses in my previous SOA record: $TTL 3D @ IN SOA ns.thejarbar.org. email. ( 13112012 28800 3600 604800 38400 ); thejarbar.org. IN A 10.0.0.42 @ IN NS ns.thejarbar,org. yuccalaptop IN A 10.0.0.19 ns IN A 10.0.0.42 gw IN A 10.0.0.138 www IN CNAME thejarbar.org. $TTL 600 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN SOA ns.thejarbar.org. email. ( 13112012 28800 3600 604800 38400 ); 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns.thejarbar.org. 42 IN PTR thejarbar.org. 19 IN PTR yuccalaptop.thejarbar.org. 138 IN PTR gw.thejarbar.org. I read the ranges that are used under rfc 1918 and modified my routers resource pool to assign LAN devices IP(s) within the 30.0.0.0 range and now modified my SOA to: $TTL 600 @ IN SOA ns.thejarbar.org. email. ( 13112012 28800 3600 604800 38400 ); thejarbar.org. IN A 30.0.0.42 @ IN NS ns.thejarbar,org. yuccalaptop IN A 10.0.0.19 ns IN A 30.0.0.42 gw IN A 30.0.0.138 www IN CNAME thejarbar.org. $TTL600 0.0.10.in-addr.arpa. IN SOA ns.thejarbar.org. email. ( 13112012 28800 3600 604800 38400 ); 0.0.30.in-addr.arpa. IN NS ns.thejarbar.org. 42 IN PTR thejarbar.org. 19 IN PTR yuccalaptop.thejarbar.org. 138 IN PTR gw.thejarbar.org. I can ping my nameserverver ns.thejarbar.organd it gives me the correct isp IP address, but my domain never seems to propagate to my nameserver. I have searched for a concise tutorial that covers setting up a DNS with a nameserver that hosts (my) or the site. I am fully aware that this is not recommended and am using this for my learning purposes. Getting to the question, due to the lack of information in tutorials I looked at (nothing about rfc 1918 and no example of swapping these with ISP IP) is my router modification going to help me as it does not seem to be. I have also tried as recommended using my ISP IP instead of the values I posted. My site never propagated to my nameserver. What could be causing this? I have run dig thejarbar.org @88.89.190.171 and get an authorative response. Can anyone assist me with the final steps I may be missing here?

  Read the article

• code metrics for .net code

  - by user20358

  While the code metrics tool gives a pretty good analysis of the code being analyzed, I was wondering if there was any such benchmark on acceptable standards for the following as well: Maximum number of types per assembly Maximum number of such types that can be accessible Maximum number of parameters per method Acceptable RFC count Acceptable Afferent coupling count Acceptable Efferent coupling count Any other metrics to judge the quality of .Net code by? Thanks for your time.

  Read the article

• Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

  - by Damien Carru

  This article is a continuation of my previous entry where I explained how OIF/IdP leverages OAM to authenticate users at runtime: OIF/IdP internally forwards the user to OAM and indicates which Authentication Scheme should be used to challenge the user if needed OAM determine if the user should be challenged (user already authenticated, session timed out or not, session authentication level equal or higher than the level of the authentication scheme specified by OIF/IdP…) After identifying the user, OAM internally forwards the user back to OIF/IdP OIF/IdP can resume its operation In this article, I will discuss how OIF/IdP can be configured to map Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes: When processing an Authn Request, where the SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method with which the user should be challenged When sending an Assertion, where OIF/IdP sets the Federation Authentication Method in the Assertion Enjoy the reading! Overview The various Federation protocols support mechanisms allowing the partners to exchange information on: How the user should be challenged, when the SP/RP makes a request How the user was challenged, when the IdP/OP issues an SSO response When a remote SP partner redirects the user to OIF/IdP for Federation SSO, the message might contain data requesting how the user should be challenged by the IdP: this is treated as the Requested Federation Authentication Method. OIF/IdP will need to map that Requested Federation Authentication Method to a local Authentication Scheme, and then invoke OAM for user authentication/challenge with the mapped Authentication Scheme. OAM would authenticate the user if necessary with the scheme specified by OIF/IdP. Similarly, when an IdP issues an SSO response, most of the time it will need to include an identifier representing how the user was challenged: this is treated as the Federation Authentication Method. When OIF/IdP issues an Assertion, it will evaluate the Authentication Scheme with which OAM identified the user: If the Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a Federation Authentication Method, then OIF/IdP will use the result of that mapping in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled If the Authentication Scheme cannot be mapped, then OIF/IdP will set the Federation Authentication Method as the Authentication Scheme name in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled Mappings In OIF/IdP, the mapping between Federation Authentication Methods and Authentication Schemes has the following rules: One Federation Authentication Method can be mapped to several Authentication Schemes In a Federation Authentication Method <-> Authentication Schemes mapping, a single Authentication Scheme is marked as the default scheme that will be used to authenticate a user, if the SP/RP partner requests the user to be authenticated via a specific Federation Authentication Method An Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a single Federation Authentication Method Let’s examine the following example and the various use cases, based on the SAML 2.0 protocol: Mappings defined as: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapped to LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication BasicScheme urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 mapped to X509Scheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication Use cases: SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with X509Scheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method. SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with LDAPScheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method, not the BasicScheme SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with LDAPScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisSessionlessScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with BasisSessionlessScheme as the FederationAuthenticationMethod, since that scheme could not be mapped to any Federation Authentication Method (in this case, the administrator would need to correct that and create a mapping) Configuration Mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. Authentication Schemes As discussed in the previous article, during Federation SSO, OIF/IdP will internally forward the user to OAM for authentication/verification and specify which Authentication Scheme to use. OAM will determine if a user needs to be challenged: If the user is not authenticated yet If the user is authenticated but the session timed out If the user is authenticated, but the authentication scheme level of the original authentication is lower than the level of the authentication scheme requested by OIF/IdP So even though an SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user, if that method is mapped to an Authentication Scheme and that at runtime OAM deems that the user does not need to be challenged with that scheme (because the user is already authenticated, session did not time out, and the session authn level is equal or higher than the one for the specified Authentication Scheme), the flow won’t result in a challenge operation. Protocols SAML 2.0 The SAML 2.0 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 2.0 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocol urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Telephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PersonalTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PreviousSession urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Smartcard urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocolPassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TLSClient urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:XMLDSig urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SoftwarePKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Kerberos urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SecureRemotePassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:NomadTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:AuthenticatedTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SmartcardPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TimeSyncToken Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 2.0 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml20-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 2.0 An example of an AuthnRequest message sent by an SP to an IdP with the SP requesting a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user would be: <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" Destination="https://idp.com/oamfed/idp/samlv20" ID="id-8bWn-A9o4aoMl3Nhx1DuPOOjawc-" IssueInstant="2014-03-21T20:51:11Z" Version="2.0">  <saml:Issuer ...>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Issuer>  <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="false" Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"/>  <samlp:RequestedAuthnContext Comparison="minimum">    <saml:AuthnContextClassRef xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">      urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>  </samlp:RequestedAuthnContext></samlp:AuthnRequest> An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion ...>        <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>        <saml:Subject>            <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>            <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">                <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../>            </saml:SubjectConfirmation>        </saml:Subject>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z">            <saml:AuthnContext>                <saml:AuthnContextClassRef>                    urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport                </saml:AuthnContextClassRef>            </saml:AuthnContext>        </saml:AuthnStatement>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 2.0 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes SAML 1.1 The SAML 1.1 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 1.1 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:HardwareToken urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:X509-PKI urn:ietf:rfc:2246 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:SPKI urn:ietf:rfc:3075 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:XKMS urn:ietf:rfc:1510 urn:ietf:rfc:2945 Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 1.1 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml11-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 1.1 An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...>    <samlp:Status>        <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/>    </samlp:Status>    <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...>        <saml:Conditions ...>            <saml:AudienceRestriction>                <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience>            </saml:AudienceRestriction>        </saml:Conditions>        <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password">            <saml:Subject>                <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID>                <saml:SubjectConfirmation>                   <saml:ConfirmationMethod>                       urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer                   </saml:ConfirmationMethod>                </saml:SubjectConfirmation>            </saml:Subject>        </saml:AuthnStatement>        <dsig:Signature>            ...        </dsig:Signature>    </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Note: SAML 1.1 does not define an AuthnRequest message. An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 1.1 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes OpenID 2.0 The OpenID 2.0 PAPE specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for OpenID 2.0 flows: http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor-physical Out of the box, OIF/IdP does not define any mappings for the OpenID 2.0 Federation Authentication Methods. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. An example of an OpenID 2.0 Request message sent by an SP/RP to an IdP/OP would be: https://idp.com/openid?openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.realm=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_request&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.if_available=attr0&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.max_auth_age=0 An example of an Open ID 2.0 SSO Response issued by an IdP/OP would be: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP for the various protocols, to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods.Cheers,Damien Carru

  Read the article

• What email providers are case sensitive? [on hold]

  - by Thanatos

  According to RFC 5321, the local-part of email addresses is case-sensitive. However, most providers that I know of (e.g., GMail) are not case-sensitive. (It's actually more complex than that: GMail ignores .s in emails as well.) Is there a list, or source, of the various rules, including case-sensitivity, for various major email providers? Is there a large-ish email provider than has case-sensitive email addresses?

  Read the article

• PHP introduit une nouvelle API de gestion des mots de passe, fondée sur l'algorithme de hashage sécurisé Bcrypt

  La RFC "password_hash" vient d'être acceptée et sera ajoutée à PHP 5.5 Pourquoi cette nouvelle API ? Généralement lorsque l'on parle de hash de mot de passe les utilisateurs se tournent vers md5 ou sha, deux algorithmes qui ne devrait plus être utilisés (nombreuses rainbow tables, failles dans l'algorithme ...) Une solution efficace pour hasher ses mots de passe est l'utilisation de bcrypt mais malheureusement peu de développeur l'utilisent notamment à cause de la fonction crypt() de php qui n'est pas des plus facile...

  Read the article

• How do I change the date format in Gnome 3 shell?

  - by James Haigh

  I want to change the date/time format on the top panel to a format close to RFC 3339 / ISO 8601, like one of these: %F %T ? 2013-06-24 16:13:00 %F %a %T ? 2013-06-24 Mon 16:13:00 %A %F %T ? Monday 2013-06-24 16:13:00 I know Unity has a preference somewhere hidden away in dconf, this is how I did it in Unity, but I can't find such a preference for Gnome 3 shell. Preferably, I'd also like to set one of these as my system-wide date/time locale preference.

  Read the article

• MailMergeLib - A .NET Mail Client Library

  MailMergeLib is a SMTP mail client library. It makes use of .NET System.Net.Mail and provides comfortable mail merge capabilities. MailMergeLib corrects a number of the most annoying bugs and RFC violations that .NET 2.0 to .NET 4.0 suffer from.

  Read the article

• Java SE 7 Update 4??????·???????G1 GC??????“WebLogic+WebSocket”??????????????????????WebLogic Server 12c Forum 2012?????

  - by ???02

  2012?4?????????Java SE 7 Update 4????????·??????(GC)????G1 GC??????????GC???????????? ???????Web??????????????????HTML5??????/???????????????????WebSocket??????????????????WebLogic Server?????????????????????????????? 2012?8????????WebLogic Server 12c Forum 2012???????????·?????????????????????????(???) Java SE 7 Update 4??????G1 GC???????? 2012?8????????WebLogic Server 12c Forum 2012??????????????????·???????????????????????Java EE 6??????????????????????????????????????WebLogic Server????????????????????·???????????????????Java SE 7 Update 4???????GC??HTML5??????1????WebSocket??????????·????????????????????? ?????? Fusion Middleware?????? ?????????????? ???? 2012?4???????Java SE 7 Update 4?????Mac OS X????????????????????????G1 GC?????????? Fusion Middleware?????? ???????????????????????G1 GC???????????????? ????????GC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????·??????????????????????????·??????????GC????????????????1??GC???????????????????????????????? GC????????????????????????????GC??????????????????????GC????GC???????????????????????????????GC??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???64????????????????????JVM?????64????????????64????JVM????GB???????·????????????????????????GC????????????????GC????????????????????????????·????????????????GC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????SLA????????????????????·?????????????? ????????????????????????Java SE 7 Update 4????????GC?G1 GC?? G1 GC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????GC???????????????????????????(????????)??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????G1 GC??????????????????????????????????????????? ??G1 GC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????GC?????????????????????64????JVM????????·???????????????????????????????????????GC??????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????OutOfMemory???????????????????????????????? WebLogic Server 12c?Java SE 7??????????????G1 GC???????????WebLogic Server 11g(10.3.6)??????????????????????GC????????JVM??????????-XX:+UseG1 GC????????????????? HTML5?Web????/?????????WebSocket?????????????????? ?????? Fusion Middleware?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? Fusion Middleware???????WebLogic Server??????·???????????????????????·?????????Near future of WebLogic / ????WebLogic???????????????Web??????????HTML5???? ????????IT????????????????????1???????·?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????HTML5?? HTML5???????HTML????????????HTML???Web????????????????????????HTML5???????????????????????????????????????????????HTML5????????/???????????????????????????????????WebWorker?????????????????????????????Web Storage???????API??????HTML5??????????????HTML??????????? ???HTML5??????????????????????WebSocket????????Web????/?????????????????????????? WebSocket????????????????????????(???????)?HTTP????????????????WebSocket????????WebSocket????????????????????????HTTP????????????????????????Web????/??????????????????? WebSocket??????????“??????Web”???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1???????????????????????HTTP???????????????????????????????????Comet????HTTP???????????????????????????????WebSocket???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????WebSocket????????????????????????????????????????????????????? WebSocket???????????????????????????? ?????? WebSocket???????(RFC 6455) ?????(Proposed Standard)??? WebSocket API(JavaScript)??(W3C) ????(Last Call Working Draft)??????2012?6?14???? WebSocket API Java EE??(JSR-356) Review Ballot??? ???? Web???? Google Chrome 16?Mozilla Firefox 11?Internet Explorer 10(PP5)?Safari 6??? ???·????? Jetty?jWebSocket?node.js?GlassFish 3.x????? ????????????????(RFC 6455)?????????JavaScript??????????????????????Java EE????????JSR-356?????????????????????????·????????????????????????????·??????????????? ??????????Java???????????????GlassFish????????????????????(JSR-356)??????????????·???·???????????????? ?WebSocket?WebLogic Server ??????????????WebSocket??WebLogic Server???????????????????? WebSocket????HTML5?????????????????????????????????HTML5?????????????????????Java EE?????????HTML5????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????HTML5?????????????????????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????HTML5???????????Java EE??????????????????????????(???) ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Java EE?WebLogic?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  Read the article

• Handshake violation when trying to access one website

  - by Miguel

  I have a TZ 190 Wireless Enhanced with SonicOS Enhanced 4.2.1.0-20e. Yesterday, people could access without any problems a bank website wich uses HTTPS. Today, it is imposible to access only that website, every other ones works without problems. When checking the log message filtering to my IP only, this is what appears and I suspect is the cause of this problem, because all other websites are working: Priority: Notice Category: Network Access Message: TCP handshake violation detected; TCP connection dropped Source: X.Y.Z.3, 51997, LAN (admin) Destination: 200.14.232.18, 443, WAN Notes: Handshake Timeout Where X.Y.Z.3 is my local IP. I've tried to change TCP Settings under Firewall option, and activated this options with no success: Enforce strict TCP compliance with RFC 793 and RFC 1122 and Enable TCP checksum enforcement I've also tried to find the MTU and at first I got: Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set But when I lower the value of ping -f -l to 1468 I got: Request timeout. Also I deactivate CFS in lan and wan zones. Nothing works. Can you please help me? Any Ideas?

  Read the article

• What breaks in a Windows domain if a member has a high time skew?

  - by Ryan Ries

  It's taken for granted by most IT people that in a Windows domain, if a member server's clock is off by more than 5 minutes (or however many minutes you've configured it for) from that of its domain controller - logons and authentications will fail. But that is not necessarily true. At least not for all authentication processes on all versions of Windows. For instance, I can set my time on my Windows 7 client to be skewed all to heck - logoff/logon still works fine. What happens is that my client sends an AS_REQ (with his time stamp) to the domain controller, and the DC responds with KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW. But the magic is that when the DC responds with the aforementioned Kerberos error, the DC also includes his time stamp, which the client in turn uses to adjust his own time and resubmits the AS_REQ, which is then approved. This behavior is not considered a security threat because encryption and secrets are still being used in the communication. This is also not just a Microsoft thing. RFC 4430 describes this behavior. So my question is does anyone know when this changed? And why is it that other things fail? For instance, Office Communicator kicks me off if my clock starts drifting too far out. I really wish to have more detail on this. edit: Here's the bit from RFC 4430 that I'm talking about: If the server clock and the client clock are off by more than the policy-determined clock skew limit (usually 5 minutes), the server MUST return a KRB_AP_ERR_SKEW. The optional client's time in the KRB-ERROR SHOULD be filled out. If the server protects the error by adding the Cksum field and returning the correct client's time, the client SHOULD compute the difference (in seconds) between the two clocks based upon the client and server time contained in the KRB-ERROR message. The client SHOULD store this clock difference and use it to adjust its clock in subsequent messages. If the error is not protected, the client MUST NOT use the difference to adjust subsequent messages, because doing so would allow an attacker to construct authenticators that can be used to mount replay attacks.

  Read the article

• tcp msl timeout implementation in linux

  - by iamrohitbanga

  The following is given in the book TCP IP Illustrated by Stevens Quiet Time Concept The 2MSL wait provides protection against delayed segments from an earlier incarnation of a connection from being interpreted as part of a new connection that uses the same local and foreign IP addresses and port numbers. But this works only if a host with connections in the 2MSL wait does not crash. What if a host with ports in the 2MSL wait crashes, reboots within MSL seconds, and immediately establishes new connections using the same local and foreign IP addresses and port numbers corresponding to the local ports that were in the 2MSL wait before the crash? In this scenario, delayed segments from the connections that existed before the crash can be misinterpreted as belonging to the new connections created after the reboot. This can happen regardless of how the initial sequence number is chosen after the reboot. To protect against this scenario, RFC 793 states that TCP should not create any connections for MSL seconds after rebooting. This is called the quiet time Few implementations abide by this since most hosts take longer than MSL seconds to reboot after a crash. Do operating systems wait for 2MSL seconds now after a reboot before initiating a TCP connection. The boot times are also less these days. Although the ports and sequence numbers are random but is this wait implemented in Linux? Also RFC 793 says that this wait is not required if history is maintained. Does linux maintain any history of used sequence numbers for connections to handle this case?

  Read the article

• ISC DHCPD IPv6 for multiple interfaces

  - by Seoman

  I want to assign multiple IPv6 to a server with multiple NIC. As IPv6 RFC defines, each server has a unique DUID that can have one of the 3 formats (LL, LLT or enterprise). And each NIC has an IAID. So a request from NIC1 its the DUID and the IAID of the NIC1 and the request from NIC2 its the same DUID but the IAID its different. The problem is that from a Centos box, when I ask for an IP in 2 different interfaces, I get the same IP. I can't find how to specify host entry based on DUID and the IAID. I see some people generating a unique DUID based on the MAC of the NIC but this is not IPv6 RFC says. What I tried is: host entry1 { host-identifier option dhcp6.client-id 00:01:00:01:19:fc:f8:1c:52:54:00:7e:c9:ec; option dhcp6.ia-na "00:09:40:5d"; fixed-address6 2001:db8:0:1::202; } host entry2 { host-identifier option dhcp6.client-id 00:01:00:01:19:fc:f8:1c:52:54:00:7e:c9:ec; option dhcp6.ia-na "00:7e:c9:ec"; fixed-address6 2001:db8:0:1::201; } This causes a Segmentation Fault in the client (what is scary...). I guess is not the right use for ia-na option but I don't see any other option.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >