ername is:
> horizonmm.com
> Mon Aug 27 14:22:24 2001: DEBUG: setSessionTimeout:
> Called-Station-Id is: 641920
> 0
> Mon Aug 27 14:22:24 2001: DEBUG: Query is: select
> USERNAME,TIMEBLOCK,CLASS,DISAB
> LETIME,DISABLECLASS from XSTOP where USERNAME='horizonmm.com'
> Mo
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:58 AM
> To: Radiator
> Subject: RE: (RADIATOR) Framed-IP of 0.0.0.0
>
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Given that we don't use FramedGroupBaseAddress in our Client
> clauses, and given that the problem has been reported with
&
nting-Response
Identifier: 18
Authentic:
(<196><208><254>x<239><243><235><22>#<196>x<166><138><182><15>
Attributes:
-Original Message-
From: Hugh Irvine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:35 P
Hello William -
The only way to understand what is happening is to look at a trace 4 debug
from Radiator to see in what circumstances this occurs. As it is the NAS that
sends the accounting packets that are used to maintain the session database,
it is highly likely that this is a NAS issue.
> To: William Hernandez; Radiator
> Subject: Re: (RADIATOR) Framed-IP of 0.0.0.0
>
>
> I got this when someone connect in ISDN at two channels, the
> second record is showing this IP. Ascend Max TNT
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > We're using 2.18.2. Rec
I got this when someone connect in ISDN at two channels, the second record
is showing this IP. Ascend Max TNT
> Hello everyone,
>
> We're using 2.18.2. Recently we started to see FRAMEDIPADDRESS of
> 0.0.0.0 in RADONLINE. These records create a problem when
> checking for Simultaneous-Use. Is t
Yes.
I have seen this before prior to using Radiator in some of my NASes.
We also have some Ascends.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of William Hernandez
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 07:16
To: Radiator
Subject: (RADIATOR) Framed-IP
Hello everyone,
We're using 2.18.2. Recently we started to see FRAMEDIPADDRESS of
0.0.0.0 in RADONLINE. These records create a problem when
checking for Simultaneous-Use. Is this a problem with the Ascend
NASes that we use?
Thanks in advance,
William
===
Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archiv
