Which network equipment are you using just out of curiosity ! :)
Cheers!
-dw
--
Derek Wuelfrath
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu <https://www.sogo.nu/>),
PacketFence (www.packetfence.org <https://www.packetfence.org/>) and Fingerbank
(www.fingerbank.org <https://www.fingerbank.org/>)
> On Jun 20, 2017, at 16:16, Tim DeNike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Correct... We use it and it works beautifully.. Nice to be able to have VM
> running in a different vlan than your laptop. :D
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Derek Wuelfrath <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> You would need network equipment that supports multiple untagged VLAN on the
> same switch port.
>
> Cheers!
> -dw
>
> --
> Derek Wuelfrath
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu <https://www.sogo.nu/>),
> PacketFence (www.packetfence.org <https://www.packetfence.org/>) and
> Fingerbank (www.fingerbank.org <https://www.fingerbank.org/>)
>
>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 15:27, Tim DeNike <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Or using radius COA and multiple untagged devices on the switch port.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Derek Wuelfrath via PacketFence-users
>> <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Max,
>>
>> Even if this feature let’s you “manage multiple devices” on an unmanaged
>> switch, there is no magic :)
>> This feature needs to work using the webauth enforcement. This is the only
>> way the “upstream” managed switch can enforce different “policies” on
>> multiple devices plugged into an unmanaged switch.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> -dw
>>
>> --
>> Derek Wuelfrath
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu <https://www.sogo.nu/>),
>> PacketFence (www.packetfence.org <https://www.packetfence.org/>) and
>> Fingerbank (www.fingerbank.org <https://www.fingerbank.org/>)
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 10:46, Max McGrath <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Derek.
>>>
>>> That's what I had assumed, but in my testing that was not my experience.
>>>
>>> I'll revisit in my test environment when I have a moment.
>>>
>>> Max
>>>
>>> --
>>> Max McGrath <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-mcgrath/1b/3a6/a21>
>>> Network Administrator
>>> Carthage College
>>> 262-551-6666 <tel:(262)%20551-6666>
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Derek Wuelfrath <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> Hey Max,
>>>
>>> That means, if per exemple you have a managed switch port with PacketFence
>>> enforcement configured on it, and that you have a small unmanaged desktop
>>> switch plugged into that managed switch port, then you can register /
>>> unregister / apply a violation / close a violation / change the role of all
>>> the devices plugged into that unmanaged desktop switch.
>>>
>>> Managing a device from PacketFence that is plugged into that unmanaged
>>> desktop switch will inform you that they are other devices with a
>>> locationlog opened on the same managed switch port and that you can apply
>>> the action to all of the devices or only on the one you are currently
>>> editing.
>>>
>>> Does that helps ?
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> -dw
>>>
>>> --
>>> Derek Wuelfrath
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (www.sogo.nu <https://www.sogo.nu/>),
>>> PacketFence (www.packetfence.org <https://www.packetfence.org/>) and
>>> Fingerbank (www.fingerbank.org <https://www.fingerbank.org/>)
>>>
>>>> On Jun 16, 2017, at 16:14, Max McGrath via PacketFence-users
>>>> <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello -
>>>>
>>>> I saw in the release notes for version 7.0 a feature which states "Ability
>>>> to manage multiple "active" endpoints behind a single switchport
>>>> (PR#2034)".
>>>>
>>>> What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that PacketFence will now work
>>>> with multiple endpoints plugged into a single hub/switch?
>>>>
>>>> I've just tried that and it doesn't seem to function as expected. Perhaps
>>>> PR#2034 does something different than I'm reading into it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>>> --
>>>> Max McGrath <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/max-mcgrath/1b/3a6/a21>
>>>> Network Administrator
>>>> Carthage College
>>>> 262-551-6666 <tel:(262)%20551-6666>
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org <http://slashdot.org/>!
>>>> http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________
>>>> <http://sdm.link/slashdot_______________________________________________>
>>>> PacketFence-users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>>>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org <http://slashdot.org/>!
>> http://sdm.link/slashdot <http://sdm.link/slashdot>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PacketFence-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
>> <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
PacketFence-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
