> > > As our company offers unmetered accounts, I can say that it is would be
> > > much easier to disallow multiple logins rather than attempt to actually
> > > get people to pay for multiple usage. Good luck.
> > >
> > If you want easy, run a garbage company. You're an ISP. Nobody ever said
> > it was going to be easy.
>
> And why should we try to keep it hard? This is very poor reasoning.
>
We shouldn't. However, it's _EASIER_ to implement this as a local site-
specific solution. If you want to make it _EASY_ do it that way. Otherwise,
accept that it's hard and bill.
> > > Which costs money.
> > >
> > So? If it costs you more to code it than it does to let people log in
> > multiple times, ignore it. Otherwise, it pays for itself. Welcome to
> > business.
>
> Lessee, we can have the vendor code a solution, which they said they
> will, or we can have tens if not hundreds of ISP's spending resources
> individually on solutions. Thank god you aren't teaching a business class.
>
Lessee... If the vendor codes the solution, they need to code a solution
that provides for 100's if not 1000's of possible different authentication
policies at each of these little ISP's, few of which are actually going
to be sufficiently satisfied with any generic solution that comes out,
most of which are going to end up modifying the solution that Livingston
provides as such anyway. Thank god you aren't teaching a class on how
to run an ISP.
> One of Livingston's biggest assets is that it creates easy to configure
> devices. I would imagine that support this functionality would be no
> different. Your theory about a support nightmare is just that: a dream.
>
HA! This is a complicated enough issue that there's no easy way to explain
all the tradeoffs in the different solutions that would have to be
implemented. Sorry, but the way Livingston made their boxes easy to
configure was by making them do a few things very well. RADIUS is not
easy to configure. It's easy to clone RADIUS entries and modify them
using a text editor if you know what you're doing. But Livingston has
not done anything to make RADIUS easy to "configure". Why do you think
this extension would be any different?
> > Not necessarily all of them, but I _KNOW_ (confirmed by Livingston) that
> > _ALL_ of their engineers are busy on higher priority projects.
> >
>
> Even after posting to the contrary, you have the misconception that I feel
> that this is the most important feature on earth. I don't. All I have
> ever said is that the request is valid, should be implemented, and those
> that are asking for it are not "lusers" by default.
>
And I have never disagreed with that. I have said that it should not get
a higher priority than it has. I have never called anyone a luser.
I suspect that your retort suffers from the same problem that my above
statements do. Read enough mail messages about the same topic and you
soon forget exactly who said exactly what.
Owen