Hello Louis,
I am fully with you as far as the notion of polling being burdensome and
not scaling well goes. And perhaps I lack clear understanding of what of a
node's intended life cycle - and that may be a cause for some confusion.
Let us say I have a node that i have disconnected and no longer
On Jul 27, 2015, at 7:08 , Boris Epstein wrote:
>
> As for the node deactivation, I think there are several options. IMO, it
> needs to at least be settable - i.e., if the PF admin declares a node
> inactive, then inactive it is.
>
> Secondly, I'd say something like active polling may work. A
Hello Louis,
Thanks for your detailed response.
Naturally, fixes need approval and there is always the next release:)
As for the node deactivation, I think there are several options. IMO, it
needs to at least be settable - i.e., if the PF admin declares a node
inactive, then inactive it is.
Sec
Hi Boris,
On Jul 23, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Boris Epstein wrote:
> Hi Louis,
>
> Thanks, installed it, playing with it.
>
> Looks good - unfortunately, it looks like the RADIUS IP tracking fix which I
> have tested and which seems to work didn't make it.
>
> See:
> https://github.com/borepstein/
Hi Louis,
Thanks, installed it, playing with it.
Looks good - unfortunately, it looks like the RADIUS IP tracking fix which
I have tested and which seems to work didn't make it.
See:
https://github.com/borepstein/packetfence
Also, do you know if there has been any work on detecting when nodes g
ANNOUNCING: PacketFence 5.3.0
The Inverse team is pleased to announce the immediate availability of
PacketFence 5.3.0. This is a major release with new features, enhancements and
important bug fixes. This release is considered ready for production use and
upgrading from previous versions is str
