Alan Dekok wrote: > Arran Cudbard-Bell wrote: >> Actually ... it might be an idea to add another return path which drops >> the request and sends no reply, just to make the RADIUS server seem dead >> if any of it's critical dependencies fail. > > I've been discussing similar issues on the IETF RADIUS list. It seems > that the RFC's say the server MUST respond to the NAS for > Access-Requests. Despite that, many people think it's a good idea to > NOT respond in some situations. > > Alan DeKok. > -- > http://deployingradius.com - The web site of the book > http://deployingradius.com/blog/ - The blog > - > List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
Then possibly an agnostic response, though the RFC would have to updated to include the extra packet type... Access-IDontKnowBecauseOurSQLServersBroken -- Arran Cudbard-Bell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Authentication, Authorisation and Accounting Officer Infrastructure Services | ENG1 E1-1-08 University Of Sussex, Brighton EXT:01273 873900 | INT: 3900 - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
