Derek Wuelfrath wrote: > Can you point me that part of code ? I'm using Cisco switches, so it's in the Cisco SNMP file :
/usr/local/pf/lib/pf/SNMP/Cisco.pm Specifically, line 1053. For now I've hand modified the code to work around it. I've been thinking about this a bit and, to be honest, I'm not sure of a really elegant solution. I'm not sure what happens for other switch types. I think a possible solution would be to create a whitelist of acceptable CDP/LLDP values. Then just have the code loop through them. > I'll reevaluate this thing :) Sounds fun. Lemme know if you need anything from my end. > Since PacketFence is access port based, if you configure port-security/radius > auth/"whatever floats your boat auth" on an uplink and PacketFence is > receiving the "Access-Request" and doesn't know that it is currently dealing > with an uplink, you may lose that port ;) I'll let you imagine what it can > cause :P Yeah, I guess that could be a bad thing. Turns out users get upset when their ports go down. Go figure. > I'll reevaluate this thing too ;) We looove to put some comments in the code > ahah :) /usr/local/pf/lib/pf/SNMP.pm - Line 2320. > Cheers! > dw. -- --------------------------- Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold [email protected] --------------------------- "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.\" - Niven's Inverse of Clarke's Third Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ PacketFence-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
