Stefan Winter wrote:
> is that implemented in FR, be it 1.1 or 2.0? According to
> http://wiki.freeradius.org/RFC it shouldn't be.
It's in the dictionaries...
> From my reading of the RFC, defining it "by hand" in radreply is not
> considered good enough, because it has a specific logic behind it:
>
> (2.1)
>
> If a home RADIUS server that supports the CUI attribute receives an
> Access-Request packet containing a CUI (set to nul or otherwise), it
> MUST include the CUI attribute in the Access-Accept packet.
That can be done via policy logic in "unlang".
if ("%{Chargeable-User-Identifier}") {
update reply {
Chargeable-User-Identifier = ....
}
}
> So, always sending it via radreply would ignore the SHOULD NOT. Not defining
> it at all though makes it difficult for the server to maintain a persistent
> yet anonymous handle. So something like defining it by hand but only
> including it if it was asked for would be needed. Is that logic present in
> FR?
Nope. It's 4 lines of text, as above.
The only complexity is *creating* it, and mapping it to a known user.
This can be done via additional logic, and stored in SQL, for example.
Alan DeKok.
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
