Hi,
I am now working in configure radius 2.0.1 and redhat 4.1.
After I set it up, ./radius -x command shows
auth bind error Address already in use.
No detail file is present.
Kenneth Tse
--------------26BDA5437BB18C01224E49E5
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Return-Path: <inet-access-ignored@earth.com>
Received: from mailgate.BSDI.COM by aicom.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id UAA12865; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:45:36 -0700
Received: from austin.bsdi.com (daemon{5BMWBmZIebF3clUID68sWBILoJtg3sGh}@austin.BSDI.COM [205.230.232.49]) by mailgate.BSDI.COM (8.8.5/8.8.2) with ESMTP id VAA25998; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:29:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by austin.bsdi.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA14680; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:29:13 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (taob@tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca [207.181.89.5]) by austin.bsdi.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA14670 for <inet-access@earth.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:29:06 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost (taob@localhost)
by tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP
id XAA25245 for <inet-access@earth.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:29:13 -0600 (MDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <199706060329.VAA14680@austin.bsdi.com>
List-Admin: inet-access-request@earth.com (subscribe/unsubscribe requests)
Errors-To: inet-access-ignored@earth.com
Originator: inet-access@earth.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: inet-access@earth.com
Resent-From: inet-access@earth.com
Sender: inet-access@earth.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 23:28:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brian Tao <taob@nbc.netcom.ca>
To: inet-access@earth.com
Subject: Re: single 10mb switched port vs shared 100mb port
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970605162759.0068a85c@pop.jcnis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970605230453.24171Y-100000@tor-adm1.nbc.netcom.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> DEFINITELY agreed. Do not put 146 nodes on one collision domain,
> even at 100 Mbps. BAD idea (unless they're all just doing VT100
> telnet emulation ;).
Even then, my typing generates a couple dozen packets per second
over the Ethernet. Having 140 people all going at that rate will add
up to a few thousand packets per second, and I'm sure at that rate
even fast Ethernet will start experiencing collisions. ;-) Bottom
line: reducing the extent of your collision domains will do a lot
more for your network than simply increasing the bandwidth.
> The "backbone" should be a 100BaseX switch, if you can afford it.
> Doesn't have to be huge, just 12 or so ports. (So I guess you don't
> need a Cat 5000, but it would still be COOL!)
The Catalyst 2901 is nice for that kind of scale. It's also fixed
configuration, but much less expensive than the 5000 and it comes with
2 100baseT and 12 10/100baseT ports.
-- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@netcom.ca) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"
============================== ISP Mailing List ============================== Email ``unsubscribe'' to inet-access-request@earth.com to be removed. If the thread changes topics, change the subject.
--------------26BDA5437BB18C01224E49E5--