Hi Alan,

   The reason is because we are developing a client that can speak to
    two RADIUS servers at the time. We generate an alarm when comunication
    is not possible with one SERVER. However, we would like to clear that
    alarm by doing a periodic check.

    I agree that that a ping is not the best way but we are looking for a
    way to check the status of the Server from the Client perspective though
    SNMP should be used instead. It is a requirement that is coming from
    our customer.

    That is why. One potential solution is to alternatively trying
    the two servers, but there is a cost associated with that.

We were thinking that if we send a Server-Status time to a
Server that we did not get a radius response from (ie. time-out),
and it sends a message back, it is up. From what I see in the code
that is how it is treated.

...Gil
 

Alan DeKok wrote:

"Gil Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> THanks for your response, but there is no information on the
> Status-Server.

  Exactly.  Its use is implementation-dependent.

> What I would like is something to indicate what the status of the
> server is (from the RADIUS client perspective).

  See the link I posted about 'Keep-Alives'.

  If the server is down, what can the client do?  Nothing.  So there's
no point in checking.

  If the client is performing authentication requests, then it will
notice that the server is down, when the server doesn't respond.  So
Status-Server is pointless.

  If the client is NOT performing authentication requests, then it
doesn't care if the server is down.  So there's no point in using
Status-Server.

>    Any suggestions?

  First, I would like to know why you would like to use Status-Server,
and how you think it would help.

  Personally, I'm opposed to using Status-Server, because it's
pointless, as the 'Keep-Alives' section says in the RFC.

  Alan DeKok.

-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html


-- 



Gil Yu
Nortel Networks
Passport SNMP/OAM Frameworks
(613)763-1421 (ESN 393-1421)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 

Reply via email to