Another thing I noticed is that if I go into PF and restart the switchport from
the node details, it will authenticate as dot1x.
When it fails, it seems it is trying wired mac auth. When it does wired mac
auth, it says it’s successful, but on a port that is something other than where
it is really plugged in, so no network access.
If I unplug the nic, and plug it back in, it does not work, only when I restart
the port from PF does it work properly and authenticate as dot1x.
From: Sokolowski, Darryl via PacketFence-users
[mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:34 AM
To: packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Jason Sloan
<jason.a.sl...@gmail.com>
Cc: Sokolowski, Darryl <ds...@earthcolor.com>
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] auth request from wrong switch
Hi again,
This is weird, I don’t know what it means.
A machine starts up, shows up on port 2/43, then it appears for some reason it
gets authorized on a different port right after that. The first port it appears
on, 2/43 is the real port it’s plugged into. Then right after that, it appears
on 5/3, and that’s when I think it gets kicked off the network, since now the
switch thinks it’s on 5/3. There are no minihubs in the way, these machines
plug directly into their respective ports.
I attached a good bit of the debug log, but didn’t want to send the whole
thing, it’s very long. Let me know if I need to send more. There is more in the
attachment than I pasted below.
I can’t figure out why these machines are getting seen on multiple ports.
Thanks for any insight.
Darryl
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350287: 350087: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: dot1x-packet:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi2/43] EAPOL canned status packet
sent to client 0xAC000094"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350288: 350088: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: dot1x-ev:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi2/43] Deleting client 0xAC000094
(0026.2d15.049b)"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350289: 350089: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: dot1x-ev:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi2/43] Delete auth client (0xAC000094)
message"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350290: 350090: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: dot1x-ev:Auth client ctx destroyed
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350291: 350091: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS/ENCODE(00000000):Orig. component type = Invalid
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350292: 350092: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IP: 172.16.0.200
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350293: 350093: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IPv6: ::
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350294: 350094: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): sending
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350295: 350095: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): Send Access-Request to 172.16.1.73:1812
onvrf(0) id 1645/251, len 259"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350296: 350096: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: authenticator 7A 07 65 33 17 CD 20 47 - 3C 6A 23 4C 46
19 31 B0
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350297: 350097: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: User-Name [1] 14 "00262d15049b"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350298: 350098: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: User-Password [2] 18 *
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350299: 350099: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Service-Type [6] 6 Call Check
[10]
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350300: 350100: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 31 "
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350301: 350101: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 25 "service-type=Call Check"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350302: 350102: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Framed-MTU [12] 6 1500
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350303: 350103: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Called-Station-Id [30] 19 "2C-54-2D-A5-A4-D2"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350304: 350104: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Calling-Station-Id [31] 19 "00-26-2D-15-04-9B"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350305: 350105: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Message-Authenticato[80] 18
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350306: 350106: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: 2D 71 9B 1E 20 7F 88 F3 6E D2 37 C1 40 61 D7 1B
[ -q n7@a]
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350307: 350107: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: EAP-Key-Name [102] 2 *
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350308: 350108: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 49 "
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350309: 350109: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 43
"audit-session-id=AC1000C80000B2D674FDDBB6"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350310: 350110: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 18 "
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350311: 350111: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 12 "method=mab"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350312: 350112: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: NAS-IP-Address [4] 6 172.16.0.200
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350313: 350113: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: NAS-Port-Id [87] 21
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350314: "GigabitEthernet2/43"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350315: 350114: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: NAS-Port-Type [61] 6 Ethernet
[15]
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350316: 350115: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS: NAS-Port [5] 6 50243
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350317: 350116: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): Sending a IPv4 Radius Packet
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350318: 350117: Nov 16
12:53:00.279: RADIUS(00000000): Started 5 sec timeout
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350319: 350118: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS: Received from id 1645/251 172.16.1.73:1812,
Access-Accept, len 36"
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350320: 350119: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS: authenticator EE 56 4E 55 B5 FF D8 E4 - E6 0A 75 4C 50
E6 99 9C
2017-11-16 07:52:59,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350321: 350120: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS: Tunnel-Type [64] 6 00:VLAN
[13]
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350322: 350121: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS: Tunnel-Private-Group[81] 4 "18"
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350323: 350122: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS: Tunnel-Medium-Type [65] 6 00:ALL_802
[6]
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350324: 350123: Nov 16
12:53:00.483: RADIUS(00000000): Received from id 1645/251
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350325: 350124: Nov 16
12:53:01.131: RADIUS/ENCODE(00000000):Orig. component type = Invalid
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350326: 350125: Nov 16
12:53:01.131: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IP: 172.16.0.200
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350327: 350126: Nov 16
12:53:01.131: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IPv6: ::
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350328: 350127: Nov 16
12:53:01.131: RADIUS(00000000): Sending a IPv4 Radius Packet
2017-11-16 07:53:00,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350329: 350128: Nov 16
12:53:01.131: RADIUS(00000000): Started 5 sec timeout
2017-11-16 07:53:01,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350330: 350129: Nov 16
12:53:01.163: RADIUS: Received from id 1646/204 172.16.1.73:1813,
Accounting-response, len 35"
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350331: 350130: Nov 16
12:55:06.950: dot1x-ev:[Gi2/43] Interface state changed to DOWN
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350332: 350131: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: dot1x-ev:[Gi2/43] Clearing all supplicant instances
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350333: 350132: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: RADIUS/ENCODE(00000000):Orig. component type = Invalid
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350334: 350133: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IP: 172.16.0.200
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350335: 350134: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: RADIUS(00000000): Config NAS IPv6: ::
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350336: 350135: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: RADIUS(00000000): Sending a IPv4 Radius Packet
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350337: 350136: Nov 16
12:55:06.954: RADIUS(00000000): Started 5 sec timeout
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350338: 350137: Nov 16
12:55:07.046: RADIUS: Received from id 1646/205 172.16.1.73:1813,
Accounting-response, len 35"
2017-11-16 07:55:07,Local5.Notice,172.16.0.200,"350339: 350138: Nov 16
12:55:07.950: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface
GigabitEthernet2/43, changed state to down"
2017-11-16 07:55:09,Local5.Error,172.16.0.200,"350340: 350139: Nov 16
12:55:08.950: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface GigabitEthernet2/43, changed state to
down"
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350341: 350140: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x_auth Gi5/3: initial state auth_initialize has enter
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350342: 350141: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x-sm:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi5/3] 0x0E000095: initialising"
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350343: 350142: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x_auth Gi5/3: during state auth_initialize, got event
0(cfg_auto)"
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350344: 350143: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: @@@ dot1x_auth Gi5/3: auth_initialize -> auth_disconnected
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350345: 350144: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x-sm:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi5/3] 0x0E000095: disconnected"
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350346: 350145: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x_auth Gi5/3: idle during state auth_disconnected
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,350347: 350146: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: @@@ dot1x_auth Gi5/3: auth_disconnected -> auth_restart
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350348: 350147: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x-sm:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi5/3] 0x0E000095: entering restart"
2017-11-16 07:55:11,Local5.Debug,172.16.0.200,"350349: 350148: Nov 16
12:55:12.290: dot1x-ev:[0026.2d15.049b, Gi5/3] Sending create new context event
to EAP for 0x0E000095 (0026.2d15.049b)"
From: Sokolowski, Darryl via PacketFence-users
[mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:44 PM
To: Jason Sloan <jason.a.sl...@gmail.com<mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Sokolowski, Darryl <ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>>;
packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] auth request from wrong switch
This is happening to a few ports, but not all ports, I counted 12 so far.
I got some of the debug output, and looking thru it.
I set the ip radius source-interface on the 2 switches that seems to be
crossing each other.
Thanks
Darryl
From: Jason Sloan [mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 2:11 PM
To: Sokolowski, Darryl <ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>>
Cc:
packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] auth request from wrong switch
Depends on how the authentication request is sent. Is this happening for one
client/port on the switch or the entire switch?
Try setting the source interface:
conf t
ip radius source-interface X (in your case you like
Since your switches are not under heavy load you can flip on some debugs and
take a look at the authentication and make sure it is sourced as expected.
debug dot1x all
debug authentication all
debug radius authentication
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Sokolowski, Darryl
<ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>> wrote:
Oh, ok. Since we have a ring, all interfaces comprising the ring are forwarding
except one.
All switches are trunked to each other over the ring. I am certain there are no
extra errant extra uplinks, since we are just beginning to use the switches and
not much plugged into them yet.
How could the blocking cause a machine to appear on a different port?
I did forget to include one switch is a 4507 chassis. Don’t think this should
matter.
Thanks
Darryl
From: Jason Sloan
[mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com<mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 11:05 AM
To: Sokolowski, Darryl <ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>>
Cc:
packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] auth request from wrong switch
show spanning-tree vlan X (in your case vlan 1)
Check and see if all ports are in a forwarding state, or at least the ones you
expect to be in a forwarding state are forwarding. If left to its own devices,
sometimes spanning tree can make the wrong decision during an election. You can
manually set spanning tree priorities on your up-links if this is the case. If
the switches have vlan 1 trunked to each other this may be something to look
at, otherwise probably not an issue.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Sokolowski, Darryl
<ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>> wrote:
Hi thanks for the response.
Sorry, I should have offered more detail on environment.
All switches are Cisco 3560E.
172.16.0.196 is a switch, all vlans exist on all switches, all switches use
vlan1 for management, they are trunked via 10GB ring.
I did not set radius source interface.
No NATs.
Sorry, what do you mean by reviewing spanning tree blocks?
From: Jason Sloan
[mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com<mailto:jason.a.sl...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:23 PM
To:
packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Sokolowski, Darryl <ds...@earthcolor.com<mailto:ds...@earthcolor.com>>
Subject: Re: [PacketFence-users] auth request from wrong switch
A few questions.
172.16.0.196 - is that a switch at all? If so, is that switch on the same vlan?
Have you reviewed your spanning-tree blocks? Are you able to set a radius
source interface? If so, is it set to the appropriate SVI / L3 link? Any NATs
in the topology?
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Sokolowski, Darryl via PacketFence-users
<packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:packetfence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>>
wrote:
Hi all,
I have a strange problem I can’t see the reason for,
I have machines that get “stuck” unable to access the network seems like
because the 802.1x authentication request is coming from a switch that the
device isn’t plugged into.
In this case, I have a computer (18:66:da:1e:06:0a) plugged into switch with IP
172.16.0.200.
In the log it shows that the request is coming from 172.16.0.196, and
authorizes the machine and assigns the correct vlan, but it is assigned to the
wrong switch, so the client never can access the network.
Further, there is already the correct machine (64:00:6a:7c:34:ce) authorized on
that port because that machine really does plug in there.
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] handling radius autz request: from switch_ip =>
(172.16.0.196), connection_type => WIRED_MAC_AUTH,switch_mac =>
(00:23:ac:d0:ca:8a), mac => [18:66:da:1e:06:0a], port => 10110, username =>
"1866da1e060a" (pf::radius::authorize)
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] Instantiate profile default
(pf::Connection::ProfileFactory::_from_profile)
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] Connection type is WIRED_MAC_AUTH. Getting role from
node_info (pf::role::getRegisteredRole)
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] Username was defined "1866da1e060a" - returning role
'Employee' (pf::role::getRegisteredRole)
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] PID: "CORE\amblerd", Status: reg Returned VLAN:
(undefined), Role: Employee (pf::role::fetchRoleForNode)
Nov 13 03:12:37 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:18:66:da:1e:06:0a] (172.16.0.196) Added VLAN 18 to the returned RADIUS
Access-Accept (pf::Switch::returnRadiusAccessAccept)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] handling radius autz request: from switch_ip =>
(172.16.0.196), connection_type => Ethernet-EAP,switch_mac =>
(00:23:ac:d0:ca:8a), mac => [64:00:6a:7c:34:ce], port => 10110, username =>
"host/LoboA7.CORE.LOCAL" (pf::radius::authorize)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] is doing machine auth with account
'host/LoboA7.CORE.LOCAL'. (pf::radius::authorize)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Instantiate profile Earthcolor_Owned
(pf::Connection::ProfileFactory::_from_profile)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Found authentication source(s) : 'AD-Auth' for realm
'null' (pf::config::util::filter_authentication_sources)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) WARN:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Calling match with empty/invalid rule class. Defaulting
to 'authentication' (pf::authentication::match2)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Using sources AD-Auth for matching
(pf::authentication::match2)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 pfqueue: pfqueue(9628) INFO: [mac:unknown] undefined source
id provided (pf::lookup::person::lookup_person)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Found authentication source(s) : 'AD-Auth' for realm
'null' (pf::config::util::filter_authentication_sources)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Using sources AD-Auth for matching
(pf::authentication::match2)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] Username was NOT defined or unable to match a role -
returning node based role 'Employee' (pf::role::getRegisteredRole)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] PID: "host/LoboA7.CORE.LOCAL", Status: reg Returned
VLAN: (undefined), Role: Employee (pf::role::fetchRoleForNode)
Nov 13 03:12:52 pf1 packetfence_httpd.aaa: httpd.aaa(24173) INFO:
[mac:64:00:6a:7c:34:ce] (172.16.0.196) Added VLAN 18 to the returned RADIUS
Access-Accept (pf::Switch::returnRadiusAccessAccept)
I can’t figure out what’s going on here.
Anyone seen this and can you point me how to make it right?
Thanks
Darryl
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
________________________________
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE <<<
This electronic mail (e-mail) message, including any and/or all attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information, pertaining to business conducted under the
direction and supervision of EarthColor, Inc. All e-mail messages, which may
have been established as expressed views and/or opinions (stated either within
the e-mail message or any of its attachments), are left to the sole
responsibility of that of the sender, and are not necessarily attributed to
EarthColor, Inc. Unauthorized interception, review, use, disclosure or
distribution of any such information contained within this e-mail message
and/or its attachment(s), is(are) strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by replying to this e-mail
message, along with the destruction of all copies of the original e-mail
message (along with any attachments).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
PacketFence-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
