[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Jonathan De Graeve" <m0n0wall at esstec dot be>
 To:  "'Alex M'" <radiussupport at lrcommunications dot net>, "'Monowall Support List'" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Captive Portal Refresh issue
 Date:  Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:49:24 +0100
Please state m0n0wall version, radius setup (do you use one or 2
radiusservers) etc

Stating: I also know about a PF CP bug with ... doesn't help me much

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Alex M [mailto:radiussupport at lrcommunications dot net]
> Verzonden: maandag 12 februari 2007 7:03
> Aan: 'Jonathan De Graeve'; Monowall Support List
> Onderwerp: RE: [m0n0wall] Captive Portal Refresh issue
> 
> Just wanna put my 50c, I also know about PF CP bug with radius accounting,
> which basically sends 2 identical accounting packets instead of one.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan De Graeve [mailto:m0n0wall at esstec dot be]
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:54 PM
> To: 'Tim Roberts'
> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Captive Portal Refresh issue
> 
> Normally not,
> 
> But why would you use a CP in bridged mode?
> 
> A pcap of the issue (at client side) and an independent test-case with a
> m0n0wall (not pfsense) is somewhat required. Since PFsense CP and M0n0wall
> CP are not 100% identical (different webserver, some code changes to adapt
> to the webserver VAR etc)
> 
> PS An Login OK at the radius side doesn't always mean that a user is
> getting
> accepted. I've seen situations before where a nas still got a RADIUS
> Access-Reject packet although the log stated Login OK. Which radius server
> are you using?
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> J.
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Tim Roberts [mailto:pfsense at dsslink dot net]
> > Verzonden: zondag 11 februari 2007 21:46
> > Aan: Jonathan De Graeve
> > Onderwerp: Re: [m0n0wall] Captive Portal Refresh issue
> >
> > sorry, i sent you a "book" a second ago and didnt see you replied to
> this
> > off the list. Thanks! Also, we tested this weird loop login gg with IE
> 7,
> > IE
> > 6 and Firefox 2.0. Thye all behaved the same way. Will Captive Portal
> work
> > in bridge mode with Monowall?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jonathan De Graeve" <m0n0wall at esstec dot be>
> > To: "'Tim Roberts'" <pfsense at dsslink dot net>; <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:30 PM
> > Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Captive Portal Refresh issue
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Here is the basics of our portal config:
> > >>
> > >> No Idle timeout
> > >> No Hardtimeout
> > >> Max Concurrent Connections (we have tried 0 for none, 16, and left
> > blank)
> > >> Authentication - Radius
> > >
> > >
> > >> Re-Authenticate connected users every minute (then at someones
> > >> suggestion,
> > >> manually coded this to 360 seconds)
> > > There is a 'hidden' config.xml option, you don't have to hardcode it
> to
> > > change it.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if its the same issue but I had something similar using
> > > radius
> > > mac-authentication and mozilla-based browsers.
> > >
> > > This got fixed something later in the 1.2x tree.
> > >
> > > It would be nice if you could sent me a clientlevel networktrace
> > > (preferably
> > > pcap style)
> > >
> > > This should give some understanding on what is going on.
> > >
> > > I'll check with Scott which m0n0wall CP version they're using since
> > there
> > > are some fixes in the current svn. (scott, if you read this ;) )
> > >
> > > My second suggestion is to try a M0n0wall, it shouldn't be a problem
> if
> > > you're only using it as a CP.
> > >
> > > Following m0n0wall versions are considered to be stable CP wise :
> > > 1.22,1.23b1
> > >
> > >> All else defaults.
> > >>
> > >> On another note (in case this is a resource issue), we are using the
> > re-
> > >> auth feature because we are providing 24x7 service and dont want to
> > >> restrict the users service. However, since we use DHCP, when the
> > clients
> > >> get a new IP, they are forced to login anyways again. Well, this will
> > >> work
> > >> for us fine if that is how it is to work by design. Can you confirm
> > that
> > >> please? If a user does not pay their bill, we wanted it to cut off
> > their
> > >> service asap. If that has to transpire 24 hours later (after a DHCP
> > >> renew), that is fine by use and maybe will help this issue if its
> > >> resource
> > >> related. I ran a top on all the boxes and showed the CPU bored to
> death
> > >> at
> > >> 99% idle. These are p4-2.4GHZ / 512MB / 80GB SATA150 Dell boxes.
> > >
> > > A m0n0wall is definitely being able to handle more then 15user
> > > connections.
> > > I've heard about handling 90-100users so 15should work ;)
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> > >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch