>Not everyone likes the idea of using a bumper. Many people want to deny
>the new session. That means that RADIUS at least has to wait for it.
$.02 I would like a bumper...again, not a major issue for us though.
>BETA, read my lips BETA. BETA is supposed to be broken. That's why they
>call it BETA. If you can tell me about an experience like that with a
>released version of ComOS, (other than the early 2's, which even Livingston
>admits had some nasty problems which they resolved quickly and re-released),
>I'll be pretty surprised.
Ok, ComOS 3.1.4 *and* ComOS 3.3.1 on PM-25's trying to use PortMaster
service, or Rlogin service, on medium loaded ethernet (~4-5% collision
rate)...having *MAJOR, SERIOUS* problems with hangs and lag. My guess
is that the IP retransmit code isn't up to snuff. Have called
Livingston techs about it when we were running 3.1.4 and they said
upgrade to 3.3.1. Called back after upgrading to 3.3.1 and said we were
having same problem and never heard from them. About to the point were
we're going to replace them because of it. (next order we place will
likely have the equipment to replaces our PM's)
>Platform portability isn't the only issue. You handle it based on one
>set of policies and your way of treating your users is downright hostile
>and rude IMHO. Bumping off the established session in favor of the new
>session is just plain bad. The new session should be denied.
I honestly don't care how its done as long as only one session is
allowed. Currently, on our shell setups, we bump off the old
session...we think its more effective this way. Yes, it could be
considered rude, but then using the account multiple times (and lets
face, your example of the same person having multiple computers to dial
in to our service is *extremely* rare) could also be considered rude.
>But a large part of Livingston's customer base can't.
I think you overestimate the number of "large" sites out there.
>I consider the effort being spent on more important problems better than
>any effort being spent on this one. That's why I keep making excuses
>for this one. Sure, this problem _CAN_ be solved. However, solving it
>right is:
> 1. Non-trivial
> 2. Not the highest priority
FOR YOU!!!! Is *IS* a high priority for others though, quit making
excuses for something you don't need just because you don't need it.
There are some sites that need it....we aren't one of them in this case
(though it would be kinda nice), but I can see where it definitely
*could* be needed. I think you are rather presumptious to say that this
solution isn't needed just because you don't need it.
-- Jeff McAdams | A feature is a bug IgLou Internet Services | with seniority. e-mail: jeffm@iglou.com | -- unknown