RE: [RadiusNT] Re: RadiusNT Digest

Bob's Lists ( (no email) )
Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:16:53 +0300

> >> Set Malformed to 3. The RFC clearly says password data must be a
> >> multiple of 16. You'd be suprised how many people can't read an
> >> RFC, that write RADIUS clients.
> >
> >I'm not sure what that statement implies about the people who wrote 206,
> >since it ignored the problem, but I think I find it amusing
> >
> I am always amazed at how people take pokes at RadiusNT, when they
> obviously don't understand the difference between Radius clients
> and Radius servers. RadiusNT is a server written to conform to the
> Radius standards. The Radius client is the communications box that
> is requesting the authorization, and it is the one that causes most
> of the problems.

One of the qualifications required of those with a sense of humour is the
ability to interpret things loosely, rather than anally, along with the
ability to look at things from a different angle.

It wasn't a 'poke at RadiusNT'. Of the Radius servers I've looked at,
RadiusNT is one of the best.

The point of the humour, which obviously whizzed clean over your head, was
that the customer in this case upgraded his radius SERVER to 209, from 206,
and that the 206 SERVER was prepared to ignore the CLIENT's error but the
209 SERVER isn't.

Of course this does imply that 209 is more critical of non-RFC compliant
clients (hey, that rhymes...), as it should be, but it also implies that 206
SERVER was just as prepared to ignore non-RFC as the CLIENT in question.

For more information about this list (including removal) go to: