Re: [RadiusNT] Problems

Jeff Presley ( (no email) )
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:23:20 -0800


Thank you for the insight and update. While skins have a tendency
to thin out over time with enough poking and prodding, the overall
intent here is to create and update a world class product. You
make some valid points and while most items are documented the
reason some are not has as much to do with us not wanting to
create a how-to on building an ISP billing system as omission.

We've had this product out for quite a while now and have added
dozens and dozens of new features. There are multiple NAS
vendors who are not necessarily friendly to a Switzerland like IEA
Software who refused to sell out so that the functionality available
to everyone (with our product) couldn't be 'locked' into just that one
vendor's access server. Therefore they are not always forthcoming
with their changes and conversely, we try not to play favorites with
NAS products.

Cisco is only now beginning to make any penetration into the NAS
market, especially as concerns Radius. They valiantly stuck to the
notion that the world would swing back to Tacacs long after that
was off everyone's radar. We will look into adding them to the docs
now that they've been out longer and have built up an appreciable
installed base. Likewise, adding fields 'predefined' for the brand of
NAS you've purchased (unknown to us) is impossible. That's why
we maintain these lists, so folks can ask online who is using what
NAS and what results good and bad they've had with them. We've
had many customers install and configure RadiusNT on NAS' we've
never heard of but which were Radius compliant. At last count
there were over 150 vendors claiming Radius compatibility for their
NAS and RAS devices.

I'm curious what time banking anamoly you are referring to?

The Radius 2.5 docs are going to be included in an overall site
makeover planned for the very near future.

And finally although you want to have the call details go to a
separate database and the product doesn't support that doesn't
mean it is a bug. Concurrency control and other information used
by the billing and customer care system assumed the location was
the same as the database it was already connected to. We can't
refer to that as a bug, a bug is when something that was
/supposed/ to work doesn't.

By all means keep the information flowing Darren. We might wince
a bit if you pinch and being human we like the occasional attaboys
mixed in. Be nice to us and fully document your wish list for future
features and you might be pleasantly surprised to see them make
it into the product. :_)

On 12 Dec 98, at 14:02, Darren Bacon wrote concerning:
Re: [RadiusNT] Problems

> >Lousy? Feel free to comment on areas that *YOU* would like to see
> >expanded. Unless *YOU* suggest areas of improvement, we don't
> >specifically
> >know what areas are "lousy". The latest RadiusNT 2.5 docs are fairly
> >in depth and answers 90% of the questions most people ask.
> The list of tables in the documentation is missing a number of fields that
> the installation process installs, there are also tables missing. There are
> no descriptions on the relationships between the tables.
> There is a probelem that has only just been acknowledged about the Time
> Banking, maybe this could be in the documentation. Perhaps included as a
> readme with the distribution.
> Cisco configuration has been excluded from examples. Very frustrating when
> configuring them is so easy "when you know how".
> Adding fields to pick up extra logging information is a nice feature, it is
> spoiled by the fact there is no reference about what type of field (int,
> char, etc) should be installed in the database to pick up the information.
> The documentation online is v2.2, not much good for 2.5 users.
> We would like to log call details to a seperate database, I would have
> assumed we could just duplicate the schema into an empty database and start
> logging to it, unfortunately this appears to not be the case and we have to
> replicate the entire database?
> How many more known bugs are around that are not documented for us to see?
> I'm sorry if I have offended people, I didn't realise that trying to extract
> information about a product we've bought was such a touchy subject.
> For more information about this list, including removal, please
> see this URL:

Jeff Presley - IEA Software
- Billing and Internet solutions today --
509/444 BILL ext 13, 509/624-9903 (fax)

For more information about this list, including removal, please
see this URL: