Re: UDPFROMTO and Proxy Problem

is NOT working if eth0:1 is a physical interface) we will rebuild our test-scenario to post better debugging information. best regards Raimund Sacherer On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 16:34 +0200, Thomas MARCHESSEAU wrote: Hi Raimund, Nicolas and I did some test on proxy forwarding , we use this model

Re: UDPFROMTO and Proxy Problem

= 172.172.172.172:1812 accthost= 172.172.172.172:1813 proxyip = 10.10.10.10 secret = SECRET } --- SNIP --- On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 16:47 +0200, Raimund Sacherer wrote: Hi, i compiled freeradius (1.0.1) with the UDPFROMTO configure option and i

Re: received response to request we did not send

I Sent today another mail to the userlist which (hopefully) explains my problem a little better! regards ;-) On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 14:45 +0200, Nicolas Baradakis wrote: Raimund Sacherer wrote: [...] But THERE is somewhere a problem i could not figure out until now: If the 62.4

Re: received response to request we did not send (was: freeradius1.0.0 pre2)

patches into radius itself soon, as it seems without this outstanding fixes the UDPFROMTO patch is not complete! Best regards and hope of much helping heads ;-) Raimund Sacherer Am Mittwoch, den 15.09.2004, 16:48 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Baradakis: Raimund Sacherer wrote: we want the server

Re: received response to request we did not send (was: freeradius 1.0.0 pre2)

schrieb Nicolas Baradakis: Raimund Sacherer wrote: we want the server to listen on 2 interfaces, but there is a problem, if i tell it to bind to * (any device) it seems to NOT sent the package out to the client on the same interface it gots in, in fact, it seems it's randomly choosing

freeradius 1.0.0 pre2

Hello! we are using the freeradius server 1.0.0 pre2. we want the server to listen on 2 interfaces, but there is a problem, if i tell it to bind to * (any device) it seems to NOT sent the package out to the client on the same interface it gots in, in fact, it seems it's randomly choosing on

Re: freeradius 1.0.0 pre2

and triggered via heartbeat so it swithes over to the other server on failure. with this scenario we can manage clients with work correctly with more then one radius server and also the others in a safe manner. regards raimund Am Mittwoch, den 15.09.2004, 09:37 +0200 schrieb Raimund Sacherer

Re: Is Release 1.0.0 available?

just curious ..., what's a toddler? ;-) congrulations from me to :) regards On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 14:15 +0100, Graeme Hinchliffe wrote: On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 22:25, Alan DeKok wrote: David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw on the list last week that 1.0.0 was just about ready and I have

Re: +++ only 1 radius +++

-radius 2.4.18-3 #1 Thu Apr 18 07:31:07 EDT 2002 i586 unknown Anoter with 5 theads: Linux mysql1-pet.pipegrep.com.br 2.6.5-1.358 #1 Sat May 8 09:00:01 EDT 2004 i586 i586 i386 GNU/Linux But, with 1 thread work well TIA - Original Message - From: Raimund Sacherer [EMAIL

Re: +++ only 1 radius +++

But, with 1 thread work well TIA - Original Message - From: Raimund Sacherer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 9:49 AM Subject: Re: +++ only 1 radius +++ that seems quite ok, if you check i believe you will find out that on one

Re: Compiling Freeradius-1.0.0-pre3

directory `/root/freeradius-1.0.0-pre3/src' gmake[1]: *** [common] Error 1 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/root/freeradius-1.0.0-pre3' make: *** [all] Error 2 - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html -- Raimund Sacherer IT Development e W) a) v

Discard a Package if REALM does not match a realm in proxy.conf

not find any information about aborting a request based on his realm, so ... maybe someone knows a solution or can point me to the right place for documentation. Best regards Raimund -- Raimund Sacherer IT Development e W) a) v) e eWave Telekommunikation GmbH A-1210 Wien, Ignaz-Köck-Straße 1 Tel