My understanding was that this is about logins defined in upsd.users file,
that can be used to limit certain operations.
So upsd decides how to filter operations (thinking of it and revising the
docs, I don't believe there are now options to bind an upsd login to only
some particular devices represented on this upsd), and upsmon decides how
to log in (e.g. how many sessions it needs from same process into same
hostname and login to upsd), and a human admin decides where to set or not
the particular name and password in a NUT client.
Notably for the confusion, some networked UPSes and their drivers do have
logins independently of ones defined by a NUT deployment (be it SNMP
community or user names, or NetXML httpauth credentials, or dummy-ups
logins to another NUT, or...) which are used as part of vendor protocol and
so configuration of this or that NUT driver. I checked briefly that these
strings are not seen in an `upsc` listing of dstate ;)
Jim
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 10:25 Roger Price <roger at rogerprice.org> wrote:
> The NUT protocol provides a LOGIN <upsname> "to limit access to
the UPS
> unit(s)
> to which it is attached". This implies that it is a "login to
the ups"
> feature
> and not a "login to upsd" feature. However if upsd is attached
to two
> UPS's,
> and upsmon logs into one, and then the other, the login to the second is
> rejected ALREADY-LOGGED-IN.
>
> Question: Is it "Login to UPS" or "Login to upsd
daemon"?
>
> I propose saying in the RFC that LOGIN is to the UPS, with a note saying
> current practice does not follow this and behaves as a login to the upsd
> daemon.
>
> The response to LIST CLIENT ups1 is typically
>
> BEGIN LIST CLIENT ups1
> CLIENT ups1 ::1
> CLIENT ups1 198.51.100.2
> END LIST CLIENT ups1
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Does this mean that one or two clients are logged into ups1 ?
>
> 2) Why doesn't the listing say who (presumably an identifiable
> master/primary)
> is logged in?
>
> I would expect to see a response such as
>
> BEGIN LIST CLIENT ups1
> CLIENT ups1 ups-manager ::1 198.51.100.2
> CLIENT ups1 ups-2nd-manager 198.51.100.36
> END LIST CLIENT ups1
>
> I propose saying in the RFC that the response is still the subject of
> further
> study.
>
> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nut-upsuser mailing list
> Nut-upsuser at alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20210128/6ea7c877/attachment.html>