search

snipe / snipe-it

A free open source IT asset/license management system
https://snipeitapp.com
GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
10.4k stars 3.06k forks source link

Multiple LDAP Server #6685

Open mwolfe1 opened 5 years ago

mwolfe1 commented 5 years ago

Would it be possible to add multiple LDAP servers to sync? We manage technology for several school districts and would like to set up each district as a separate company. Each district has their own domain forest that has a trust back to our domain.

stbc commented 5 years ago

+1 multiple servers would be helpful regarding a fallback on a secondary if primary is down

jelockwood commented 5 years ago

I agree this sounds a useful enhancement. An alternative approach would be to have some sort of DNS load balancer so that e.g. ldap.domain.com redirects to a working LDAP server.

However apart from requiring the installation and setup of a DNS load balancer care also needs to be taken over possible issues with and SSL certificates and their subject alternative names so that when redirected from say ldap.domain.com to ldap1.domain.com the certificates still work.

stbc commented 5 years ago

Well, yeah, that setup is common with a lb in front of two (or more) LDAP servers. We are running a setup like that right now and have no issues with that so far. But it still would be a nice feature to add a fallback server for people not having a quite complex load balancing scenario...

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

stbc commented 5 years ago

Yes. Please. See #7087 as well.

stale[bot] commented 5 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

stbc commented 4 years ago

Dear stale bot: Yes!

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

fryguy503 commented 4 years ago

This request is still very relevant! This could help with companies that tend to acquire/divest many sub businesses. It makes it easy to bring on a new business, then just export the inventory when the segment is divested.

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

mwolfe1 commented 4 years ago

Still relevant 

Michael Wolfe

On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:01 AM "stale[bot]" < ">"stale[bot]" > wrote:

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( https://github.com/snipe/snipe-it/issues/6685?email_source=notifications&email_token=ALJJ4FDIAGSUZ3HHKNSIJV3QUE6CXA5CNFSM4GUNKMO2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEEILL2A#issuecomment-554743272 ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALJJ4FCFM35FL42ZBDANHALQUE6CXANCNFSM4GUNKMOQ ).

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

billtzim commented 4 years ago

Yes, this feature would be great to be implemented. Very helpful to support multiple ldap servers. Thank you for your great work!

cliff-LINKS commented 4 years ago

+1

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

stbc commented 4 years ago

+1 Would still love to see that

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

Bakan0 commented 4 years ago

Still relevant! 😅

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

mwolfe1 commented 4 years ago

Still relevant 

Michael Wolfe

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 2:45 AM "stale[bot]" < ">"stale[bot]" > wrote:

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( https://github.com/snipe/snipe-it/issues/6685#issuecomment-636287795 ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALJJ4FDB3XI2UVKVJU6ZK7TRUCTSJANCNFSM4GUNKMOQ ).

stale[bot] commented 4 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

mwolfe1 commented 3 years ago

Still relevant 

Michael Wolfe

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:11 AM "stale[bot]" < ">"stale[bot]" > wrote:

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( https://github.com/snipe/snipe-it/issues/6685#issuecomment-665723648 ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALJJ4FD27TQYC7WD6VBTF73R6A32PANCNFSM4GUNKMOQ ).

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

AisFlo commented 3 years ago

We would like this Feature too, as a fallback option. I guess it could be a problem to implement, because with multiple LDAP server, you have to compare them to the existing Users. What if they differ?

jelockwood commented 3 years ago

@AisFlo The use I am anticipating would be to define two (or more) connections to different members of an LDAP cluster. All cluster members should already be synchronising data so should be identical. This benefit is that if the primary defined LDAP server fails it will be able to use a secondary entry and therefore continue to provide service. As such there will be no need to worry about differences between the LDAP servers.

fryguy503 commented 3 years ago

I am more interested in multiple separate ldap systems. E.g. I work for a company that has central management and r-wan connection to a number of schools. I would like to have companies setup for each district and users pulled from each of their AD systems for those "companies".

bcourtade commented 3 years ago

+1 fryguy503 We are set up in a similar way. Schools with separate AD Domains connected over shared fiber.

Selecting which LDAP source to use could be as simple as a domain dropdown option on the login screen, or choosing email address as the username for matching.

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

fryguy503 commented 3 years ago

Stalebot seems counter-productive, these requests are valid and should be exempted from the constant need to bump these requests.

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

mwolfe1 commented 3 years ago

Still relevant. 

Michael Wolfe

On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:23 AM "stale[bot]" < ">"stale[bot]" > wrote:

Is this still relevant? We haven't heard from anyone in a bit. If so, please comment with any updates or additional detail. This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Don't take it personally, we just need to keep a handle on things. Thank you for your contributions!

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub ( https://github.com/snipe/snipe-it/issues/6685#issuecomment-751262700 ) , or unsubscribe ( https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALJJ4FA5GJ4WVB6UXAHGMK3SWSU7HANCNFSM4GUNKMOQ ).

stale[bot] commented 3 years ago

Okay, it looks like this issue or feature request might still be important. We'll re-open it for now. Thank you for letting us know!

SpearRIT commented 3 years ago

This is definitely still relevant and I believe that both the ability to add multiple ldap servers for the same domain and the ability to add multiple ldap domains are equally useful. So... +1!

padeli commented 3 years ago

I'd love to see this feature rolled out!

opayemim commented 2 years ago

I will love to see this featured rolled out too

OMFCP commented 1 year ago

Ran into a similar issue trying to get my child domains to sync via ldap. To get the users in my child domains to sync all I had to do was add the port for the ldap global catalog server connection 3268 to the end of my ldap server entry in the settings. I looked like ldap://server.domain:3268 and it immediately pulled in all users from all of my child domains.

derrynj commented 1 month ago

+1 it would be very useful to have a fallback server to specify