Re: [Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking

Dale E. Reed Jr. ( (no email) )
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:46:21 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Previous message: NCKCN: "Re: [Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"
Next message: Steve Rookard: "[Emerald] Imail and Imail.sql"
Maybe in reply to: TIA: "[Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"
Next in thread: TIA: "Re: [Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"

Randy Martin wrote:
>
> I don't mean to jump into the middle of this, but isn't the above the
> NON-SNMP concurrency doing it's job correctly? It did the radcheckonline
> and found the user already online. It doesn't seem to me that you should
> need both? I don't have the SNMP concurrency setup, and everything works
> just fine on our system. Is there only certain combinations of NAS's etc.
> that have a problem with the non-SNMP concurrency checking?
>
> >Apr 18 15:06:03 2000 [INFO]: SQL Statement: {CALL
> >RadCheckOnlineSNMP('ejluckey')}
> >Apr 18 15:06:03 2000 [INFO]: Server:tcm-glenelder
> >SNMPUser:.1.3.6.1.4.1.429.4.10.1.1.18.1788 User:ejluckey
> >Sending Ack of id 111 to d12a4f23 (tcm-glenelder)

Assuming that the customer's login limit is 1, the SNMP verified
that the customer is indeed on-line and should not be allowed on
again. If the string after the User: does not match the auth name,
then the SNMP checking would ignore the on-line entry, to prevent
false denial.

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

Previous message: NCKCN: "Re: [Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"
Next message: Steve Rookard: "[Emerald] Imail and Imail.sql"
Maybe in reply to: TIA: "[Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"
Next in thread: TIA: "Re: [Emerald] Work on SNMP Concurrency Checking"