>On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, MegaZone wrote:
>> FreeBSD if you don't want to run the other binaries. And if you don't
>> use Livingston equipment, the licensing on RADIUS 2.0 forbids your using
>> it anyway so it isn't a worry. 2.0 is available only to our registered
>> customers.
>>
>> To register *and* request the CD - see the web or call sales.
>Christ on a pointed stick. I thought Livingston was free from this
>marketing bullshit.
I don't think this is 'marketing bullshit'. Livingston is doing quite
a bit of research work into radius. Why should other commercial companies
like USR or Cisco benefit without paying fees? As I understand it from
earlier posts the main reason for this agreement is the fact that
other companies are ripping off radius code as a product for _their_
customers. If I made something, I wouldn't want my competitors to
run away with it either.
>All well, I'm not switching to radius 2.0 anyway, and I'm using Ascends
>for all of my dialup now so I don't have to deal with this.
I don't think we'll be switching either, but that's mainly because our
radius server is now almost completely rewritten. We had to be able to
answer 100 packets a second, and the original livingston code wasn;t
able to do that.
>Anyone up for putting out a FreeRadius package derived from the 1.16
>source tree? With Merit doing similar things with the licensing on
>their LAS stuff it would almost be worth the effort. I'd bet we can match
>Livingston feature for feature and do lots of other nifty stuff as well.
We would do that if our code wasn't so extremely tailored to our needs.
For instance, we directly read our NIS password database and keep it in
memory, checking regularly to see if it changed, to update the incore
copy of it.
>In my bag I've got:
>- Prefixed logins for unix auth'ed users. (SCP patches, and
> adding something like user[#$%&]service wouldn't be hard either.
Doesn't everyone? :)
>- PPP PAP autodetection (for prefixless PPP logins)
Why do you need that? Doesn't user_service_type and framed_protocol tell you
what you wanna know?
>- Livingston Portmaster, US Robotics Netserver, and Ascend compatibility.
> (anyone have a Computone box I could get some detail files and -x output
> from?)
We've had major problems getting the Netserver to work. Their port of
ComOS seems flaky at best. The latest version started blasting 60 packets
a second at our server. Without even listening to answers. Our server
survived, the original 1.16 didnt ;) Fork Fork Fork. One of the first
things we fixed. Non-forking :)
Also, don't forget cisco :). Although their client code behaves differently
with every release. Seems 11.1(5) behaves somewhat normal.
Cor