Re: (ASCEND) What's the bug in 5.0Ap20?

["Gary Stern" <cairns@cairns.net.au>]

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 18:04:48 -0700, Kevin Smith wrote:

>At 08:26 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Paul Monaghan wrote:
>>
>>Can someone tell me what the RADIUS bug that was reported in 5.0Ap20 was?
>
>Ap20 would sometimes put a "bogus" modem X:X where the username should be
>in the RADIUS accounting packets. That problem is fixed in 5.0Ap23 but...
>
>>Same goes for 5.0Ap23 what exactly are these two bugs?  Are the the same?
>
>No they are not. In 5.0Ap23, the problem is that the Framed-Address reported
>for some Accounting records shows 0.0.0.0 instead of the real address. This
>was also in earlier releases, but *seems* to be related only to 2-channel MP
>calls (in all but one case I've seen it reported so far).
>
>This problems still exists in the 5.0Ap24 release (we considered it worth 
>posting anyway since there are enough customers who will benefit from the
>fixes in 5.0Ap24 - and don't absolutely *require* the framed-address info).
>
>
>Kevin

Well it's not only 2 channel MP calls.

All of my modem calls are showing it. Interestingly enough watching
logons on my screen the correct address are shown ?

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: (ASCEND) VoiceSURFR, ModemSURFR, and OnlineSURFR
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Tradeups P75(old)->P75/P85(new)?
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) What's the bug in 5.0Ap20?
• Next by thread: (ASCEND) pipeline 5.1A NAT/LAN tests
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread