Re: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request
Hello Dave, Hello Matthew - Actually Dave's first example will work fine, as all of the standard AuthBy clauses will acknowledge accounting requests even if they do nothing with them. If you do want to have an AuthBy to just do the accounting response (and you do need an AuthBy in any Handler or Realm), then you should use an AuthBy INTERNAL. # define AuthBy clauses Identifier AccountingResponse AcctResult ACCEPT # define Handlers AuthBy AccountingResponse . regards Hugh On Thursday, Feb 20, 2003, at 09:06 Australia/Melbourne, Dave Kitabjian wrote: If that's truly all it does in this scenario, I would think that we can get rid of the AuthBy and replace it with: AccountingHandled http://www.open.com.au/radiator/ref.html#pgfId=363868 Am I right? Dave -Original Message- From: Matthew Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:19 PM To: Dave Kitabjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request I believe you still need something to return a packet to register the logging; we just use an AuthBy TEST clause to do so. There may be a cleaner way to do this (since TEST generates a line in the logfile every time); if there is, would someone care to enlighten me? > -Original Message- > From: Dave Kitabjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request > > > Given the following: > > > > ... > > AuthBy LDAP_SERVER_1 > > > > am I correct in assuming that the AuthBy specifier would be completely > ignored and irrelevant since no Access-Requests will ever be handled > here? > > Dave > === > Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ > Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with > 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message. > -- Radiator: the most portable, flexible and configurable RADIUS server anywhere. Available on *NIX, *BSD, Windows 95/98/2000, NT, MacOS X. - Nets: internetwork inventory and management - graphical, extensible, flexible with hardware, software, platform and database independence.
RE: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request
Title: Message If that's truly all it does in this scenario, I would think that we can get rid of the AuthBy and replace it with: AccountingHandled http://www.open.com.au/radiator/ref.html#pgfId=363868 Am I right? Dave -Original Message-From: Matthew Trout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:19 PMTo: Dave Kitabjian; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request I believe you still need something to return a packet to register the logging; we just use an AuthBy TEST clause to do so. There may be a cleaner way to do this (since TEST generates a line in the logfile every time); if there is, would someone care to enlighten me? > -Original Message- > From: Dave Kitabjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request > > > Given the following: > > > > ... > > AuthBy LDAP_SERVER_1 > > > > am I correct in assuming that the AuthBy specifier would be completely > ignored and irrelevant since no Access-Requests will ever be handled > here? > > Dave > === > Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ > Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with > 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message. >
RE: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request
Title: RE: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request I believe you still need something to return a packet to register the logging; we just use an AuthBy TEST clause to do so. There may be a cleaner way to do this (since TEST generates a line in the logfile every time); if there is, would someone care to enlighten me? > -Original Message- > From: Dave Kitabjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: (RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request > > > Given the following: > > > > ... > > AuthBy LDAP_SERVER_1 > > > > am I correct in assuming that the AuthBy specifier would be completely > ignored and irrelevant since no Access-Requests will ever be handled > here? > > Dave > === > Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ > Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with > 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message. >
(RADIATOR) AuthBy in an Accounting-Request
Given the following: ... AuthBy LDAP_SERVER_1 am I correct in assuming that the AuthBy specifier would be completely ignored and irrelevant since no Access-Requests will ever be handled here? Dave === Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message.
