Again, Cary makes a good point. I agree that the GP staff is responsive and knowledgeable, and I'm not interested in assigning blame to either Vircom or GP. However, I am obviously not alone in dealing with these issues (as I was led to believe by GP) and it is costing me customers and reputation. It just seems to me that a workable solution is attainable, and I don't care at this point who helps me (us) to arrive at one.
On the ONE hand, given that GP has a working ghosting policy, in which they do exactly what we're asking Vircom to do (check CID and stop previous session if it matches) it seems to me that they could take this a step further and give us a stop packet (or three) when they do allow access to a ghosted user under that policy. Brad, since it seems you are actively engaged with them, perhaps you could raise that suggestion? I don't know enough about the inner workings of radius to know whether this is reasonable from their perspective, but we're looking at moving to an alternative provider that claims to do just that. It might be in GP's best interest to look into this.
On the OTHER hand, Vircom has a method of handling ghosted sessions - watchdog packets, which we all are now in agreement that they support and support very well : ). The problem is that two of our three providers refuse to send them, and the third had to be begged, threatened, etc. The bottom line is that for many situations, watchdog packets are a perfect solution, but it seems that a significant portion of radius users refuse to support them. In my opinion, then, it may be incumbent on Vircom to look into being able to duplicate the ghosted session policy in use by GP and others. Again, I don't know how costly it is for Vircom to pursue this, but it seems the alternative may also be costly for them.
Thanks for all the helpful dialog on this so far everyone.
Ramsey
At 04:17 PM 5/20/2004, you wrote:
* This is the VOP Radius mailing list * The Pops business is not simple.
"They all" buy from each other, and from multiple MMP vendors in general. Qwest, ICG, UUnet etc... so don't expect uniformity. They authenticate on their servers, don't send watchdog packets out to you, may or may not get them from their/vendors RASs, etc.
Work with what they give you. You aren't going to change their internal system.
I can assure you from personal contact the GP people and the GP tech gurus are no slouchs. You may not agree with their plan, but they do have a plan and are doing it.
Cary Fitch
* * * C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y S T A T E M E N T * * *
This E-MAIL message and any accompanying documents contain confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. The information contained within is private and protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by return e-mail or by telephone at 419-661-1233 so that we can prevent a reoccurrence. Thank you in advance for your strict compliance and assistance.
** To leave this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put the word "LEAVE" in the BODY of the email.
