Re: [Emerald] Odd reporting

Dale E. Reed Jr. ( (no email) )
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:17:59 -0800

Ken Sorenson wrote:
>
> OOps! I meant to write expiration of 10/10.. not 11/10
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emerald-request@iea-software.com
> [mailto:emerald-request@iea-software.com]On Behalf Of Ken Sorenson
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 8:45 PM
> To: emerald@iea-software.com
> Subject: [Emerald] Odd reporting
>
> I just noticed a very strange thing. Has anyone had a user expired reported
> in the radlogs, while the accounts report shows them valid/not expired?
>
> Upon review I noticed that the expiration date was 11/10, and I have a 90day
> extension, So it appears that indeed this user had expired. I am wondering
> why it did not show expired in the account listing, but was rejecting calls.

Emerald uses the following Query:

DateAdd(Day, 1+ma.Extension+ma.OverDue, maExpireDate)

to determine the expiration status on the account search screen.
However, it
does NOT take into consideration an expiration on the service itself
(which
could cause differing results between Emerald/RadiusNT).

RadiusNT uses something very similiar:

DateDiff(Minute, GetDate(), DateAdd(Day, (ma.Extension+ma.OverDue+1),
maExpireDate))

Which just tells how many minutes the account is still good for. The
main
difference is the clock on the SQL Server is used by RadiusNT, whereas
the clock on your local computer is used by Emerald. You might want to
check the dates of the two computers. I'll run some tests and see what
I
can come up with as well.

-- 

Dale E. Reed Jr.      Emerald and RadiusNT__________________________________________IEA Software, Inc.    www.iea-software.com

For more information about this list (including removal) go to:http://www.iea-software.com/support/maillists/liststart