On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 07:37:50AM -0400, Francois Gaudreault wrote: > I told you how it works, you need a management interface only, and you > need other interfaces for registration/isolation. That's how it works, > using routed VLANs or not. > > Is it that hard to follow the guidelines? If you want to do use one > interface, you know, fix the code to your own liking and don't ask for > help...
I'm sorry if I'm being annoying, this is not my intention. In terms of fixing it to my liking: yes, I am happy to do so. https://github.com/inverse-inc/packetfence/pull/71 This is the only thing I have found so far which *requires* the PF box to have its own registration and isolation interfaces. My usage case is: - PF server in core of network - isolation/registration VLANs are all remote and so far I cannot see any other reason why the PF server itself needs directly-attached registration/isolation interfaces. But obviously I am not as familiar with the code base as you are. Is there something I have forgotten or overlooked? If so I will be happy to work on that as well. Thanks, Brian. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got visibility? Most devs has no idea what their production app looks like. Find out how fast your code is with AppDynamics Lite. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219671;13503038;y? http://info.appdynamics.com/FreeJavaPerformanceDownload.html _______________________________________________ PacketFence-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
