On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 09:17:56AM -0600, Chris Parker wrote: > At 08:29 AM 12/16/2003, Alex Rodriguez wrote: > >There is a way for freeradius to be the one asigning the dynamic ip > >addresses, instead of the access server assigning them? > > > >I am trying to create different groups, with different dynamic ranges of > >ip addressess, for a project, and i cannot do that on the ascend max. Only > >the pool assignation is used to be specified using different PRI's or > >phone number. > > You can actually. If you put the ip's in different pools on the MAX, you > can tell it which pool to pull a dynamic IP from via the Vendor-Specific > attribute Ascend-Assign-IP-Pool ( from dictionary.ascend ). See the MAX > documentation for how to do this.
And I would urge you to use this solution, cause you get no benefit from letting freeradius manage the IPs. You can assign the pools to your MAXes via freeradius and you can tell the MAX which pool to choose per user. This will save you from asking the MAX for valid sessions and loosing IPs cause your radius missed a closed session... The only real benefit of managing pools on radius side would be in a pure dynamic routed enveronment (OSPF in this case -- watch your TAOS version!), where the MAX can set the routes dynamical for each assigned ip, and the pools need not to be on a per device base. So you could you a few huge pools distributed over a lot of MAXes without 'loosing' lots of net and broadcast addresses... Oliver. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
