newbie questions using freeradius as wifi access point

[Will Carter]

> > Can you give me another hint as to how I can get the rlm_expiration
> > functionality?
> 
>   What I said was:
> 
> > > The server core supplies that functionality.
> 
>   You don't need the module.

Ok, understood.

However, the reason I was thinking along the lines of needing the
rlm_expiration module is because of information in this post:
http://lists.freeradius.org/mailman/htdig/freeradius-users/2005-June/044785.
html

"Tomas 'tt' krag" <tt at krag.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately as Joachim Bloche pointed out in a mail "Session-Timeout
> not set with pending Expiration" on this list, it seems that Freeradius
> does NOT set the "Session-Timeout" based on an Expiration date in the
> future.

Same problem I am having.

Alan DeKok <aland at ox.org> wrote:
> That's not good.
> I've fixed the CVS head, and will take a look into doing this in 1.0.x
> Alan DeKok.

Does this mean that you fixed this "Session-Timeout not set with pending
Expiration" bug in the core? I do not understand what "fixed in the CVS
head" means.

Jaco van Tonder <jaco at alwayson.co.za> wrote:
> The rlm_expiration module in the latest CVS DOES include code to set the
> session-timeout and it actually works.

Hmm. That sounded good.
Also, this sounded good from the radiusd/doc/rlm_expiration doc:

> Module to expire user accounts.
> This module can be used to expire user accounts. Expired users receive
> an Access-Reject on every authentication attempt.
> use  Expiration := "23 Sep 2004 12:00"
> The nas will receive a Session-Timeout attribute calculated to kick
> the user off when the Expiration time occurs.

This is exactly what I want.
So, at this point, I was thinking that I needed this rlm_expiration module
so that my nas will get a session-timeout.

Alan DeKok <aland at ox.org> wrote:
> The feature is part of 1.0.4, and you don't need another module.  If
> it doesn't work, file a bug.

I am hesitant to file a bug. Firstly, because I don't know how to and would
probably not do it correctly. Secondly, with what Jaco van Tonder says, it
seems to be addressed with this rlm_expiration module, which I realize goes
against what you just said. I don't want file a bug that isn't valid and
waste more of anyone's time.

So now, my next step is to figure out how to file this as a bug. Would you
agree?

Thanks,
will