Besides that, it was an added statement on top of a valid response (the
memory/CPU resources for doing such a thing from a flat file). Next time
I'll stick to the exact situation at hand.
At 04:24 PM 2/3/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Mitch do you truly believe that if you had a dozen Cisco Access Servers
>strewn about that they would support concurrency control BY THEMSELVES?
>On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Mitch Wagers wrote:
>> I don't think any affordable Radius server does, but I could be wrong.
>> From a programming standpoint, I could see that being *very* resource
>> intensive and such a memory/CPU hog to process a flat accounting file
>> authentication request.
>> Good (*ahem* Cisco) Access Servers let you do this anyway, without any
>> authentication server needed. :)
>> Dale? *grin*