Hi Hugh, Dave et al, I'm receiving just accounting forward from a customer for further processing, and I've noticed the same problem; a lot of retransmissions (connectivity with our customer is really good however);
I've followed your advice and i've set explicitly DupInterval to 2 seconds in our customer's NAS Client clause, and I can see in our logfile lots of INFO messages: Thu Jun 27 22:30:56 2002: INFO: Duplicate request id 28 received from x.x.x.x(48766): ignored I understand from this the same thing Dave pointed: Radiator just ignore and discard retransmission without further action, but the retransmissions ocurred wasting BW in our case I saw the rfc's in Radiator /doc directory and it seems that radius protocol cannot sent "rejects" backward to avoid wasting BW by lots of UDP re-transmissions; Radiator by itself, could have another feature to avoid this waste of bandwidth or I'm missing completely the point? Best regards, Angel Bustos [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Hugh Irvine wrote: > > Hello Dave - > > You normally configure the timeout and retransmit values in your NAS(s) so > there will only ever be a small number of retransmissions. If your NAS >sends more >requests than you tell it to, it is an issue that must be >addressed by your >supplier. > > BTW - the DupInterval configured in the Client clauses defines the number > of >seconds in the sliding window during which a retransmission is > >considered a >duplicate. > > I suggest you read the RFC's for further information (included in the > Radiator distribution in the "doc" directory). > > regards > > > Hugh > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:04, Dave Kitabjian wrote: > > "Wed Jun 26 16:03:16 2002: INFO: Duplicate request id 87 > > received from 10.52.0.1(1026): ignored" > > > > This message was logged for an Accounting request that was clearly > > retransmitted since it had a large Acct-Delay-Time value. > > > > But if Radiator keeps ignoring the request, the NAS will keep > > retransmitting, and the circle of life will go on and on and on... > > > > Does the RFC say to ignore dups? Wouldn't it make more sense to Reject > > them somehow? Or, if the original one was already processed > > successfully, it could simply send back an Accept and then discard it as > > a dup?> > > > Dave > > > > === > > Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ > > Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with > > 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message. > > -- > Radiator: the most portable, flexible and configurable RADIUS server > anywhere. Available on *NIX, *BSD, Windows 95/98/2000, NT, MacOS X. > - > Nets: internetwork inventory and management - graphical, extensible, > flexible with hardware, software, platform and database independence. > === > Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ > Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ____________________________________________________________________________ Con�ctese Gratis a Internet desde http://www.brujula.net/gratis === Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/ Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with 'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message.
