Tariq Rashid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > thanks for the reply - multiple source ports is the obvious answer which i > didn't trust was actually specified in the RFCs.
Yes, it's in there. > The reason for this is that too often i have seen requests from 1645 > to 1645 and not (random-high-port to 1645) for example. Agreed. That's a *bad* design for a server. It means that you can't run a client & server on the same IP. > in freeradius - is that 8k requests per thread? Would you please stop getting excited about threads? Nothing I said had anything to do with threads. > or does the freeradius proxy not use threads to handle the proxy > states - is it a central state-table? I've answered that 3 times already, by my recollection. Can you explain why you are ignoring my answers? > i was hoping the threads handled the proxying becasue then i can set > the initial pool size and max-pool size (where each thread has space > for say 500 pending proxy results). That's a terrible design for a server. I've said so many times. Please, if you're going to ask questions here, then READ THE ANSWERS. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
