Alan DeKok pisze:
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
Thanks. Now it works.
That's good to hear.
Yes, I want to add current realm to reply attribute
Chargeable-User-Identity which comes form LDAP.
When Chargeable-User-Identity attribute isn't present in request I want
to remove Chargeable-User-Identity
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
> Thanks. Now it works.
That's good to hear.
> Yes, I want to add current realm to reply attribute
> Chargeable-User-Identity which comes form LDAP.
> When Chargeable-User-Identity attribute isn't present in request I want
> to remove Chargeable-User-Identity from reply.
Alan DeKok pisze:
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
I'm now running freeradius from CVS
FreeRADIUS Version 2.0.1-pre
in post-auth I have:
if ("%{FreeRADIUS-Proxied-To}" == "127.0.0.1") {
if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identity}") {
Please fix this. Putting double quotes around *everything* was never
necessar
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
> I'm now running freeradius from CVS
> FreeRADIUS Version 2.0.1-pre
>
> in post-auth I have:
> if ("%{FreeRADIUS-Proxied-To}" == "127.0.0.1") {
> if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identity}") {
Please fix this. Putting double quotes around *everything* was never
necessary, and is
Alan DeKok pisze:
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
According to RFC4372 CUI attribute in request can include a single NUL
character, then your test
if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identifier}") {
update reply {
Chargeable-User-Identifier =
}
}
evaluates to false.
I've fixed this in CVS h
Maja Wolniewicz wrote:
> According to RFC4372 CUI attribute in request can include a single NUL
> character, then your test
> if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identifier}") {
> update reply {
> Chargeable-User-Identifier =
> }
> }
> evaluates to false.
I've fixed this in CVS head (2
Alan DeKok pisze:
Stefan Winter wrote:
(2.1)
If a home RADIUS server that supports the CUI attribute receives an
Access-Request packet containing a CUI (set to nul or otherwise), it
MUST include the CUI attribute in the Access-Accept packet.
That can be done via policy logic in "unlan
Stefan Winter wrote:
> is that implemented in FR, be it 1.1 or 2.0? According to
> http://wiki.freeradius.org/RFC it shouldn't be.
It's in the dictionaries...
> From my reading of the RFC, defining it "by hand" in radreply is not
> considered good enough, because it has a specific logic behi
Hello,
is that implemented in FR, be it 1.1 or 2.0? According to
http://wiki.freeradius.org/RFC it shouldn't be.
From my reading of the RFC, defining it "by hand" in radreply is not
considered good enough, because it has a specific logic behind it:
(2.1)
If a home RADIUS server that supports
9 matches
Mail list logo
