Hello Ivan,
Le 19-06-10 à 15 h 01, Ivan Saliu via PacketFence-users a écrit :
Hi Nicholas and Felipe (hopefully you stuck with us),
So now I’ve understood what I was doing wrong and it was just so
stupid that I can’t even…
Basically I did two things:
-I put the custom port for CoA (1700 on Cisco WLCs…why use standards…)
on the field Disconnect Port (Policies and Access Control -> Network
Devices -> Switches -> My WLC).
I found from the packetfence.log file that it was working only the
authentication, but the VLAN switch was of course not working since it
does a CoA de-authentication to move the VLAN.
-Also the second step was also to put Advanced Access Configuration ->
Captive Portal in the IP field the Registration interface IP otherwise
it wouldn’t recognize in any case internet access.
Right now the captive portal is working fine, I do have some more
things that worries me that I noticed from the packetfence.log file
like the following error: Unable to extract SSID of Called-Station-ID,
which if persist actually makes more difficult for me to distinguish
between SSID and present a different captive portal for other users,
but these are a lot less painful issues than the one that I’ve just
solved.
You just need to fix the format of the Called-Station-Id attribute in
the WLC config.
Regards
Fabrice
Thanks again Nicholas for your support, as you said it was indeed a
configuration issue,
Hope you all had a nice day,
Ivan
*From:*Ivan Saliu
*Sent:* lunedì 10 giugno 2019 15:47
*To:* packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
*Cc:* 'Nicholas Pier' <09np...@gmail.com>
*Subject:* RE: [PacketFence-users] Issues with PacketFence Captive
Portal configuration
Hi Nicholas,
The issue is the second one you pointed out:
* If they disconnect and reconnect to the wireless, are they
assigned the correct VLAN / IP ? This might mean that packetfence
is properly associating the new role with the user, but the
controller isn't getting dynamically updated.
They get the proper IP address….so the issue is when PacketFence needs
to update the VLAN via Radius?
Still don’t get why the behavior is this one, I’ve checked and the
Deauthentication Method is set as RADIUS, Use CoA is enabled, and I
even put into the CoA port 1700 since Cisco’s WLC uses that.
The only thing that is missing is the Controller IP address field but
I don’t think this should cause the issue.
Ivan
*From:*Nicholas Pier [mailto:09np...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* lunedì 10 giugno 2019 13:58
*To:* Ivan Saliu <ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com
<mailto:ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com>>
*Cc:* packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Subject:* Re: [PacketFence-users] Issues with PacketFence Captive
Portal configuration
Hi Ivan,
Let's start with what's supposed to happen immediately after a login:
Packetfence should reauthorize the user and send a message to the
controller to change the role / vlan. This re-authroization is
configured on both the controller and "switch" object in packetfence.
Once this comes, the client needs to obtain a new IP address on the
new subnet.
A few questions then:
* Does the client lose network access immediately after the
re-authorization? This might indicate a client/controller-side
issue if they're not getting a new dhcp lease quickly enough.
* If they disconnect and reconnect to the wireless, are they
assigned the correct VLAN / IP ? This might mean that packetfence
is properly associating the new role with the user, but the
controller isn't getting dynamically updated.
My "gut" is that this isn't a problem with the way packetfence is
deployed (I prefer multiple interfaces, even in VMware), but rather
with the controller or "switch" configuration in packetfence. I'd work
to verify that SNMP or Radius messages are being sent from packetfence
to re-authroize the user and move them to the right VLAN. I think the
preferred re-authorization is Radius or CoA since the network
configuration guide doesn't mention SNMO read-write configuration. Can
you look at the audit tab and verify that packetfence sends a radius
message to the controller after login? Similarly, the "switch" config
object should have Radius selected from the drop-down for
re-authroization.
As for the switch, I think it's easiest to not give the switch an SVI
IP (vlan interface) and let packetfence do the work. This way you
don't need to worry about the routing implications of packetfence
having multiple NICs with their own routes, and the ACLs that are
required to isolate a client and only allow communication to
packetfence. It's just easier. However, if you need to scale to a
multi-site deployment and can't tag the registration VLAN end to end,
a routed deployment may become necessary.
Best wishes,
*Nicholas P. Pier*
Network & Virtualization Engineer
/CCNP RS, PCSNSE7, VCIX6-DCV, VCIX6-NV/
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 4:51 AM Ivan Saliu
<ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com <mailto:ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com>>
wrote:
Hi Nicholas,
I do agree with you that the flow should be that one.
So far I’ve noticed that these points works perfectly:
* User connects to SSID and is sent to registration VLAN if
their node isn't pre-registered. If the node has been
registered, the go immediately to the VLAN associated with
their role and this flow stops.
* If they're sent to the registation VLAN:
o Packetfence provides DHCP and DNS for registration VLAN.
o DNS queries from the client are leveraged to redirect them
to packetfence for captive portal. Most modern browsers
and OSs should do this automatically.
After these one though I get to the login page, I log in
successfully but I get the error: Unable to detect network
connectivity try restarting your web browser or opening a new tab
to see if your access has been successfully enabled.
After this I’m stuck, the client is not redirected to the new VLAN
and I keep the old IP Address.
PacketFence is deployed in the following way:
2 NICs, one NIC operates as a Management interface with Radius and
DHCP Daemons listening here. The 2^nd NIC operates as a
Registration Interface, does DNS and DHCP.
This is deployed in Hyper-V so this is a forced mode, I cannot use
a single interface and build on top VLANs since Hyper-V doesn’t
support multiple tagging on this.
Also another question: the Registration VLAN, should PacketFence
handle the routing? Because right now there is a Cisco 4500 in VSS
that is doing the routing.
What I’ve also noticed is that the second NIC it is not reachable
from outside the subnet but honestly I think this should be how it
works since it is supposed to be in an Isolated VLAN.
Cannot wrap my head around what I’m missing/what I do wrong.
Ivan
*From:*Nicholas Pier [mailto:09np...@gmail.com
<mailto:09np...@gmail.com>]
*Sent:* domenica 9 giugno 2019 03:06
*To:* packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
*Cc:* Ivan Saliu <ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com
<mailto:ivan.sa...@kikocosmetics.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [PacketFence-users] Issues with PacketFence Captive
Portal configuration
Hi Ivan,
I think this is mostly likely a configuration issue. It sounds
like you may be expecting the controller to receive information
about the captive portal. This may be possible, but it's not how
I've deployed packetfence in the past. Instead, Radius and DNS do
most of the work I've only worked with 7.x controller code and
don't know what's changed since... however the typical workflow
I've experienced is as follows:
* User connects to SSID and is sent to registration VLAN if
their node isn't pre-registered. If the node has been
registered, the go immediately to the VLAN associated with
their role and this flow stops.
* If they're sent to the registation VLAN:
o Packetfence provides DHCP and DNS for registration VLAN.
o DNS queries from the client are leveraged to redirect them
to packetfence for captive portal. Most modern browsers
and OSs should do this automatically.
o If the user successfully authenticates, packetfence sends
a radius message back to the controller to change their
VLAN and place them on a different subnet.
o Client obtains a new lease and can access the network.
I don't know much about your setup, but if its not routed, and
clients are placed on the same vlan as packetfence (not a routed
deployment). Are you leveraging packetfence for DHCP and DNS on
the registration VLAN?
Best wishes,
*Nicholas P. Pier*
Network & Virtualization Engineer
/CCNP RS, PCSNSE7, VCIX6-DCV, VCIX6-NV/
On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 7:45 PM Ivan Saliu via PacketFence-users
<packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>> wrote:
Hello Guys,
I’m experiencing a lot of issues in configuring PacketFence’s
Captive Portal (Version 9.0.1) with Cisco’s WLC (5508,
software version 8.1).
Basically I’ve tried to deploy the solution in two ways:
-The “Network Guide” one, where there is only 1 VLAN with ACLs
on the WLC to permit only traffic to DHCP/DNS servers and
PacketFence Portal. The issue here is the fact that the
redirection does not work at all. The Radius parameter with
the URL redirection is not filled with data and so the WLC
doesn’t redirect at all the traffic. This is an issue because
I do not like the user experience, since being force to type
an URL to log in and register the device is not good.
-The second type of deployment I’ve tried to do is an
interface in Registration mode, on a dedicated VLAN managed
entirely by PacketFence, trying to use the VLAN change to
grant internet access. In this case the Captive Portal works
fine, but once I log into it is not recognized internet access
and I get an error saying that internet access cannot be
validated. If I try to disconnect the client and reconnect it,
the VLAN is changed properly and everything works fine, but
again this is not a good user experience and I cannot put in a
production environment something that doesn’t work properly.
This would also be my preferred solution since it grants the
best approach to security of course since I would be able to
isolate the Registration VLAN and then with Access-List
prohibit access to corporate network once the client in
registered.
Do you have any idea on how to solve these issues? I do think
it is most likely a misconfiguration on PacketFence or maybe
I’m trying to implement something that it is not supported by
Cisco with its WLC?!
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated,
Ivan
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
--
Questo messaggio e' stato analizzato con Libra ESVA ed e'
risultato non infetto.
Clicca qui per segnalarlo come spam.
<http://esva.percassi.it/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=C717F400D3.A41D3>
Clicca qui per metterlo in blacklist
<http://esva.percassi.it/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?blacklist=1&id=C717F400D3.A41D3>
--
Questo messaggio e' stato analizzato con Libra ESVA ed e' risultato
non infetto.
Clicca qui per segnalarlo come spam.
<http://esva.percassi.it/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=EBE41400CB.ACCF2>
Clicca qui per metterlo in blacklist
<http://esva.percassi.it/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?blacklist=1&id=EBE41400CB.ACCF2>
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
