1 Nov 2006 05:40
Re: Re : Re : Bug on Accouting-Requests proxying
Alan DeKok <aland <at> deployingradius.com>
2006-11-01 04:40:58 GMT
2006-11-01 04:40:58 GMT
Geoffroy Arnoud <garnoud <at> yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > I agree on this. Nevertheless (correct me if I'm wrong), when > FreeRADIUS acts as a proxy, it can be synchronous or asynchronous, > right? Yes, but I'm starting to think that's wrong. The server should just act synchronously. It's a LOT easier on the server, and can't be wrong... > We need to set different timeout and retransmit per realm (customer > request / patch under contruction). > Using NAS restransmissions as you suggest supposes to be > synchronous, but we need asynchronous behaviour (different TO / > retries per realm - independant from the client). Why? OK, the customers request it, that's nice... but why? What problem do they think it solves? I really don't think per-realm asynchronous retransmits help. I just don't see why they would matter to the home server. Retransmits matter to the NAS, but the NAS controls it's retransmissions... > Using radrelay may prove to be interesting, but was not considered > useful because, at design time, we thought FreeRADIUS did respect RFC > regarding retransmissions of accounting requests. Maybe in a future > release of the project, we can think about using radrelay, but not for the > moment. So maintain local patches.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed