daxocam at uax
Oct 7, 2010, 11:54 PM
Views: 848
Permalink
|
|
Re: cisco-nas Digest, Vol 77, Issue 2
|
|
hi gerald
really the problem is that cisco is sending the same id per interface, i ve that found the way to make some kind of virtual interface, so that each connection has a different id.
i was working with virtua-template but don´t work.
thanks
----- Mensaje original -----
De: cisco-nas-request [at] puck
Para: cisco-nas [at] puck
Enviados: Jueves, 7 de Octubre 2010 18:00:01
Asunto: cisco-nas Digest, Vol 77, Issue 2
Send cisco-nas mailing list submissions to
cisco-nas [at] puck
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cisco-nas-request [at] puck
You can reach the person managing the list at
cisco-nas-owner [at] puck
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cisco-nas digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: nas-port 0 (gk [at] ax)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 17:34:13 +0200
From: gk [at] ax
To: cisco-nas [at] puck
Subject: Re: [cisco-nas] nas-port 0
Message-ID: <4CAC96F5.4080802 [at] ax>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Am 06.10.2010 15:31, schrieb Daniel Soto:
> i have a problem with nas-port 0.
> i?m trying use the attribute simultaneous-use of freeradius v1.1.3 but
> my cisco 1841 v 12.4(10a) ever send the same port to freeradius
> port nas =0
> the message in freeradius is rlm_radutmp , ID is NAS xxxxx port 0 has
> wrong ID
Could it be that the NAS port isn't the problem but rather some other ID
within the RADIUS packet?
--
Gerald
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cisco-nas mailing list
cisco-nas [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nas
End of cisco-nas Digest, Vol 77, Issue 2
****************************************
--
Daniel Soto
Dep. Comunicaciones U.A.X
Daniel Soto
Dep. Comunicaciones U.A.X
|
Re: cisco-nas Digest, Vol 77, Issue 2