On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 22:03, Phil Mayers opined:
PM:Carefully examine the two entries on line 1 and 172, determine what's
PM:different, examine the unredacted data in the packets, and correct it.
hi phil - thanks for the advice, i figured out that placement of the
$INCLUDE statement (and
paul trader wrote:
hi phil - thanks for the advice, i figured out that placement of the
$INCLUDE statement (and user info in general) in the users file is
important for windows authentication. strangely enough, it doesn't seem
to matter for a linux dialup, though.
That is a *terrible*
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 at 10:36, Alan DeKok opined:
AD: It also contradicts your previous messages. You claimed you put the
AD:users file entry at line one of the file. But now you talk about a
AD:$INCLUDE statement.
AD:
AD: So... which is it?
hi alan - well, i did both. at first the
paul trader wrote:
hi alan - well, i did both. at first the $INCLUDE was put at the bottom
of the users file, and there was 1 entry in the included file, at line 1.
Why do you have a $INCLUDE? You did NOT mention it in your other posts.
The help here presumes that you accurately
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 13:31, John Dennis opined:
JD:You still haven't sent the full debug.
hi john - thanks for your reply. i sent the output from running radiusd
-X, are you saying i need to run -Xxx and send that instead?
or are you looking for the startup output as well? i only included
On 23/09/13 17:33, paul trader wrote:
am i doing something glaringly wrong, or just going plain crazy?
It's difficult to say, because the debug you sent has all the useful
bits trimmed out - like the original packet, and the full module
processing chain.
Send a full debug, and odds are
On 09/23/2013 01:19 PM, paul trader wrote:
eOn Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 17:52, Phil Mayers opined:
PM:It's difficult to say, because the debug you sent has all the useful
PM:bits trimmed out - like the original packet, and the full module
PM:processing chain.
You still haven't sent the full
eOn Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 17:52, Phil Mayers opined:
PM:It's difficult to say, because the debug you sent has all the useful
PM:bits trimmed out - like the original packet, and the full module
PM:processing chain.
hi phil - ok, here's the full debug for a successful request:
rad_recv:
On 09/23/2013 02:07 PM, paul trader wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 13:31, John Dennis opined:
JD:You still haven't sent the full debug.
hi john - thanks for your reply. i sent the output from running radiusd
-X, are you saying i need to run -Xxx and send that instead?
No. It means all
paul trader wrote:
i used a default v2 install and only changed the users and clients.conf
files. everything else was left alone.
Well, there's no magic. If the users file entry doesn't match, it's
because the User-Name isn't test.
Alan DeKok.
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 at 14:42, John Dennis opined:
JD:You have all the information you need to debug your problem. It does
JD:require reading the debug output carefully. But you should really try
JD:to do that yourself first. As a said earlier, verify you're reading the
JD:exact same users file
On 23/09/2013 18:19, paul trader wrote:
hi phil - ok, here's the full debug for a successful request:
[files] users: Matched entry test at line 1
Versus
and here's the full output of a failed request:
[files] users: Matched entry DEFAULT at line 172
The two request look very similar,
12 matches
Mail list logo
