This isn't a general case. There are no 'clean' solutions to the multiple
login problem. It will take time to come up with a good solution that
works on all supported platforms.
> Having your needs met is important to everyones continuing sucess.
Yes, but I don't 'need' Livingston to implement this for me though.
> > 1. You've got the source for radius, and can fix it yourself.
> Not supported by Livingston.(and I wouldn't expect them to, beyond basic
> functionality.)
I can't expect them to support my local authentication policy. Its just
not going to work. I'm sorry, but I think that radius isn't really very
useful unless its modified to suit your own needs. I submit that while
it might be nice for Livingston to have a radiusd that does everything I
want, and their tech-support knows all about all the little features,
there are other things that I'd rather they spent their time and effort
on.
> > 2. There are 2 or 3 other radius implementations that will do what you're
> > asking for.
> Not supported by Livingston.(and I wouldn't expect them to, beyond basic
> functionality.)
Exactly, so why do we want them to support all of the various local
authentication policies?
> > 3. Its probably in the works anyway.
> Possible, but what do you expect everyone to do, sit in a room and just
> hope for it?
No, they can code up something themselves if its so damned important to
them. This is my point.
> One of the girls in the front office could make me breakfast... er...
> anyways....
Damn... Is that part of your standard benefit package? Where do I send
my resume. (I like my Pop-Tarts lightly browned please.)
> Sometimes people want to know where on the list an item is. It isn't a
> static situation.
>
> I think Gryphon's response was on the money too. But you only get this
> information by asking and/or pestering. We went from MZ's "when we get
> around to it," or "just bill them" to a better understanding of where in
> the queue this request is. Again, posting "Livingston doesn't caaaaare,
> they don't liiiike meeee" kind of crap doesn't help.
I agree. Thats what I was so annoyed with. I don't think Livingston is
obligated to do things that you should be able to do yourself, just
because the things you are asking for are a good idea. As someone stated
before, radiusd is a no-profit package. All the work they are doing on it
for 2.0 is to make their customers happy, and doesn't directly make them
money. (Other than the fact that happy customers continue to buy the
product...)
> And others would like *supported* additions to functionality. It could be
> fixed *once* and *properly* as Livingston says they will do, or everyone
> could continue to use what Gryphon, MZ(I forget which) say aren't the best
> solutions.
Again, how do you expect Livingston to SUPPORT local authentication
policy? At this point, I don't think their support system is ready to
deal with LUSER-ISP that calls up and fusses because he can't figure out
the config file syntax for enabling GID based authentication restriction
or selective multiple login denial or whatever. (Not to imply that
Livingston Tech Support is inadequate, but they probably have enough to
deal with right now.)
I've a feeling that when Livingston gets a chance to implement these
features, they will do things the right way, and will make all sorts of
nifty things available. At this point, I don't think they are ready to
deal with all the issues that are involved with this *supported
functionality*.
> Not at all. However I think that *supported functionality* is important to
> quite a few people.
Yes, I'm sure it is, but there should be other irons in the fire...
> Everyone has differing needs. Right now, we could use a PRI solution similar
> to the Ascend MAX's. Others need prevention of multiple logins, and want
> it in a supported Livingston version. To me, I need the former much more
> than the latter. To others, the reverse is true. Because *you* don't need
> a particular function, or have hacked a solution, doesn't invalidate
> someone elses need or desire for additional *supported* functionality.
No, I'm saying that all the people who basically said:
" NO multiple logins !! Livingston won't listen "
need to get a grip. If its that important that you need it yesterday,
write it yourself. If not, then wait for Livingston to implement it. Its
not a simple issue, and can't be taken care of over a weekend.
I'm not perfect either, but the above quote is typical of so many ISPs
these days that haven't a fucking clue. I'm really tired of people who
can't setup reverse resolution, routing and passwords on their routers.
*sigh*
| Matthew N. Dodd | winter@jurai.net | http://www.jurai.net/~winter |
| Technical Manager | mdodd@intersurf.net | http://www.intersurf.net |
| InterSurf Online | "Welcome to the net Sir, would you like a handbasket?"|