On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 08:09:25AM +0200, Chris Knipe wrote: > > Why not just tell acct_unique in its config that it should not look > > for NAS-Port-ID or substitute something else for it? > > > > And the second solution is nearly as obvious: patch pppd to do it > > right. There should be source code for it... > > Because it's not the only type of connection that the pppd server or the > radius server will serve? It's only for this one specific service that I > don't really need the port-id... There are allot of other services served by > the same radius server that I depend on the port-id...
Thats bad. Cause adding attributes is also bad and not supported as far as I remember. So perhaps writing a packet mangle module for freeradius might work (but is bad practice). > I'll see if I can get acct_unique to only disregard the attribute on the > single huntgroup, but I'm not to hopeful... A quick browse through > freeradius' source showed that rlm_ippool specifically looks for the > attributes... I may be wrong though. Thats true. If you find another attribute in your packets which might do the job, you could try to change rlm_ippool.c to look for this attribute. This is a small change. But I don't see anything useable in the paket included in your original mail. rlm_ippool need the NAS-Port-ID to keep track of the assignment. Without a unique id per nas per user is difficult to say which ip to release if the user disconnects from the NAS. But if you can only have one user per 'NAS' (i.e.) pppd, you simply might to set port=0 in the two else parts of the NAS_PORT_ID check in rlm_ippool... Oliver. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
