Does it make sense to support this option (and this probably means
things like AddToReply) in client definitions ?
Rationale : in a LAC/LNS environment, the L2TP parameters shall only
be sent to the LAC. With a current Radiator system, having different
replies requires to setup different handlers, ie :
<Handler Realm=blah, NAS-Port-Type=Virtual>
stuff for the LNS
</Handler>
<Handler Realm=blah>
if not a LNS, then probably a LAC
</Handler>
I would find it easier to have :
<Client my-lns>
Secret blah
SripFromReply Tunnel-Type, Tunnel-Server-Endpoint, ...
</Client>
Side effect (or Cisco bug ?) : with IOS 12.1.3, the Cisco Radius
accounting packet from the LNS does not return NAS-Port-Type=Virtual
anymore, but send back the Port Type received from the LAC.
--
Christophe Wolfhugel -+- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -+- France Telecom Transpac
===
Archive at http://www.starport.net/~radiator/
Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with
'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message.
