Garber, Neal wrote: > I agree with you Alan that the server shouldn't just silently "work" > with configuration errors. In the past, I've seen configuration errors > preclude the server from starting. Is that still the case?
Yes. > If so, then > given the seriousness of the error, as described in your response below, > perhaps the server should fail to start in this case as well. Huh? It does. >> No. Clients that are exact duplicates can be safely ignored. > Clients >> that are "similar" but not the same are conflicts. You may have >> policies, logging, etc. that depend on the fields that are different. >> Which one is chosen? One at random? >> >> Do you really want the server to work *accidentally*? And one day, >> when something else changes, the server suddenly picks the *other* >> client definition, and all of your policies, logs, etc. are different? > > I agree with you that conflicts are bad. I wasn't trying to suggest > otherwise. However, the current approach (even in 2.1.4) displays 2 > error messages buried in the middle of hundreds of other startup > messages. Please show an example. Duplicates are WARNINGs. Errors cause the server to not start. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
