Re: [PacketFence-users] IP tracking mechanism

Read this again. I think you are probably in the minority running dhcp on each switch rather than a central dhcp server. You could take an ap and put openwrt on it with the remote arp listener. Or pseudo wires back to pf. Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Boris Epstein wrote: H

Re: [PacketFence-users] IP tracking mechanism

You can't specify an additional relay server? Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2015, at 2:50 PM, Boris Epstein wrote: Hello listmates, I have the following question. It seems like PF needs to track the IP devices and status of the devices it manages. That is fully understandable and quite reason

Re: [PacketFence-users] Packetfence 5.0.1 Source Rule REGEXP help

Louis, Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! In case anyone else looks for this solution, I could not get it to work until I removed the " / " slashes. Once I did that, it worked perfectly! Randy - Original Message - From: "Louis Munro" To: packetfence-users@lists.sourc

Re: [PacketFence-users] Packetfence 5.0.1 Source Rule REGEXP help

On May 7, 2015, at 15:30 , Randy Prothero wrote: > I have PacketFence up and running with Google OAuth2 for registration > authentication. > I want to take different actions using a rule on the source I created. > > I created using this path: > Users -> Sources -> "Google" (external source) ->

Re: [PacketFence-users] IP tracking mechanism

Arthur, This would work if these VLANs were local which they are not. All I have in the way of connection to remote switches is regular IP - no tagged packets, hence all I can do is talk IP to them but no trunk-based communication. Thanks for your reply:) Cheers, Boris. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at

[PacketFence-users] Packetfence 5.0.1 Source Rule REGEXP help

I have PacketFence up and running with Google OAuth2 for registration authentication. I want to take different actions using a rule on the source I created. I created using this path: Users -> Sources -> "Google" (external source) -> Rules I created a new rule. The rule condition: if 'all

Re: [PacketFence-users] IP tracking mechanism

How many production VLANs do you have that you want to record IP history for? You could always throw a tagged trunk port at PF, and create individual interfaces in PF for every VLAN that you wish to log... -Arthur - Arthur E

Re: [PacketFence-users] Multiple SSIDs with hostapd / OpenWRT

This is what happens on the hostapd AP side when I disconnect from one SSID and join the other: May 7 19:21:17 OpenWrt daemon.info hostapd: wlan0: STA xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx IEEE 802.11: disassociated May 7 19:21:17 OpenWrt daemon.info hostapd: wlan0-1: STA xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx RADIUS: VLAN ID 320 May

[PacketFence-users] Multiple SSIDs with hostapd / OpenWRT

Hello all, I'm having trouble configuring multiple SSIDs on a hostapd AP. I am using OpenWRT Attitude Adjustment. I figured out that the radius das configuration should only be specified for the first SSID configuration. My SSIDs seem to start up perfectly fine, but when I disconnect from one and

[PacketFence-users] IP tracking mechanism

Hello listmates, I have the following question. It seems like PF needs to track the IP devices and status of the devices it manages. That is fully understandable and quite reasonable. Based on the discussion I started earlier: http://www.mail-archive.com/packetfence-users%40lists.sourceforge.ne

Re: [PacketFence-users] "Can't re-evaluate access because no open locationlog entry was found"

On May 7, 2015, at 13:18 , John Baker wrote: > We've had ongoing problems with users, particularly guest registrations, > sporadically not getting put in ipset for some time. What happens is that > somebody registers and then are never able to get past the "success" page. > They show up as pr

Re: [PacketFence-users] "Can't re-evaluate access because no open locationlog entry was found"

We've had ongoing problems with users, particularly guest registrations, sporadically not getting put in ipset for some time. What happens is that somebody registers and then are never able to get past the "success" page. They show up as properly registered in the database but the mac and IP never

[PacketFence-users] 5.0.2 Fresh Install Script Broken?

Attempting a fresh install of packetfence on Centos 6.6. I'm getting the following error on install and the httpd server is not starting for the configurator. Any help would be welcome! Touch pf.conf because it doesnt exist Disabling SELinux... setenforce: SELinux is disabled Starting Packetf

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

Sorry. Didn't realize Debian 8 was released. Yes, I am using Debian 7. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Mourik Jan Heupink wrote: > Well...debian 8 being the latest, I'd definitely choose 7 and not eight. > > Chris Abel schreef op 7 mei 2015 18:15:19 > CEST: >> >> Highly recommend latest versio

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

On May 7, 2015, at 12:26 , Arthur Emerson wrote: > > Do you plan to use the new CentOS firewalld stuff, or fall back to the > legacy iptables??? > > -Arthur Hi Arthur, I am not personally working on that (yet) so it might be better for others to chime in. The way I see it, we’ll go with the

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

Well...debian 8 being the latest, I'd definitely choose 7 and not eight. Chris Abel schreef op 7 mei 2015 18:15:19 CEST: >Highly recommend latest version of Debian. I too had trouble with >installing PF on more recent distros. Debian was the only one I was >able to >do it on. > >On Thu, May 7, 20

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

From: Louis Munro mailto:lmu...@inverse.ca>> wrote: > > I would say CentOS 6 is the better tested platform and we are working on > making 7 > the reference platform in the coming months. (Apologies for the premature send.) Do you plan to use the new CentOS firewalld stuff, or fall back to the le

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

From: Louis Munro mailto:lmu...@inverse.ca>> I would say CentOS 6 is the better tested platform and we are working on making 7 the reference platform in the coming months. Regards, -- Louis Munro lmu...@inverse.ca :: www.inverse.ca +1.514.44

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

On 5/7/15, 4:03 PM, "holger.patz...@t-systems.com" wrote: > >after running permanently into config problems with ubuntu, I would like >to know, what you guys run pf on. >Could it be, that centos is preferred?? Or at least, better tested (with >5...) ? It wasn't until just recently (V4.x???)

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

Highly recommend latest version of Debian. I too had trouble with installing PF on more recent distros. Debian was the only one I was able to do it on. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Mourik Jan Heupink wrote: > We're on debian 7, and this works fine. At least: most of our problems > (we're sti

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

We're on debian 7, and this works fine. At least: most of our problems (we're still testing currently) are caused by me :-) holger.patz...@t-systems.com schreef op 7 mei 2015 18:03:54 CEST: >Hi, > >after running permanently into config problems with ubuntu, I would >like to know, what you guys r

Re: [PacketFence-users] Which distro?

On May 7, 2015, at 12:03 , holger.patz...@t-systems.com wrote: > Could it be, that centos is preferred?? Or at least, better tested (with > 5...) ? 5? I would say CentOS 6 is the better tested platform and we are working on making 7 the reference platform in the coming months. Regards, -- L

[PacketFence-users] Which distro?

Hi, after running permanently into config problems with ubuntu, I would like to know, what you guys run pf on. Could it be, that centos is preferred?? Or at least, better tested (with 5...) ? Any suggestions? Regards Holger -

Re: [PacketFence-users] 5.0.2 web admin still shows "Packetfence 5.0.1"

How come the upgrade doesn't take care of this step automatically? On Wed, 6 May 2015 at 21:54 mourik jan heupink wrote: > Hi, > > > Try this: > > # cd /usr/local/pf > > # ./bin/pfcmd version >| conf/currently-at > > # ./bin/pfcmd service httpd.admin restart > still 5.0.1, but after a reboot: 5.

Re: [PacketFence-users] Error After Upgrade

Hi Steve, The timestamp looks pretty old on that file: -rw-r--r-- 1 root pf 0 Mar 10 13:23 pfconfig.log I am not sure where you got it, but try deleting it and restarting. Regards, -- Louis Munro lmu...@inverse.ca :: www.inverse.ca +1.514.447.4918 x125 :: +1 (866) 353-6153 x125 Inve

Re: [PacketFence-users] Error After Upgrade

Hi Louis I have just tried the upgrade again and had the same error. The steps I did are as follows: - Shutdown server - Take a snapshot backup - Started server - Ran yum update to get the latest security updates etc, - Reboot server (as a precaution) - Followed the https://

Re: [PacketFence-users] VendorMac violation not working with 5.0.2

Dennis, Can you share a bit more logs.  I’m interested in pfdhcplistener.log and /usr/local/fingerbank/logs/fingerbank.log Cheers! dw. --  Derek Wuelfrath dwuelfr...@inverse.ca :: +1.514.447.4918 (x110) :: +1.866.353.6153 (x110) Inverse inc. (www.inverse.ca) :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu)

Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information in the database from a guest portal page

Probably in 2 weeks. Le 2015-05-07 09:12, holger.patz...@t-systems.com a écrit : > Hi Fabrice, > > Du you have a planned release date for 5.1, yet? > > Regards, > Holger > > > -Original Message- > From: Fabrice DURAND [mailto:fdur...@inverse.ca] > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:37 PM > T

Re: [PacketFence-users] "Can't re-evaluate access because no open locationlog entry was found"

On May 6, 2015, at 15:27 , John Baker wrote: > PacketFence v5.0.1 using inline mode only. > > I see a lot of this in my log since the upgrade. Guest users register but > never get inserted in ipset. The error is sporadic and usually clears after a > restart but not always > Are you sure it’s

Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information in the database from a guest portal page

Hi Fabrice, Du you have a planned release date for 5.1, yet? Regards, Holger -Original Message- From: Fabrice DURAND [mailto:fdur...@inverse.ca] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:37 PM To: packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information i

Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information in the database from a guest portal page

Hi David, i just did a test on a 4.7 version and there is only 3 conflicts that are really easy to fix. So it's as you want,patch 4.7 or install 5.0.2 and patch it or wait for 5.1. Regards Fabrice Le 2015-05-07 08:06, David Murrell a écrit : > Hi, > > That's awesome. :) > > I'll apply it tomorro

Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information in the database from a guest portal page

Hi, That's awesome. :) I'll apply it tomorrow, and see how it goes. Does it need 5.0.2? Cheers, David On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Durand fabrice wrote: > Hi David, > > this is exactly what we are working on. > > We made a branch (fix/mandatory_fields) that fix that. If you want you can

Re: [PacketFence-users] Storing extra information in the database from a guest portal page

Hi David, this is exactly what we are working on. We made a branch (fix/mandatory_fields) that fix that. If you want you can try to apply the patch of this branch to your setup (https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/inverse-inc/packetfence/pull/516.diff). Also it will be available in t

[PacketFence-users] Admin Documentation still accurate ??

Hi, i stumbled on a problem in the docs: The admin docs says on Page 9 for a debian or Ubuntu: "Regarding resolvconf, you can remove the symlink to that file and simply create...you want." But that is not true. Doing so and trying to manage interfaces via ifup/ifdown ends with: "/etc/resolf.con