Error: Received conflicting packet

[rihad]

Alan DeKok wrote:
> rihad wrote:
>> Oh yeah? Isn't Cisco 7260 good enough for you?
> 
> Q:  Hi, I have a RADIUS server that is slower than a 386, and a NAS that
>     violates the RADIUS protocol.  What should I do?
> 
> A: Fix the server and the NAS.
> 
> Q: You bastards!  How dare you tell me my equipment is broken!
> 
> 
>   While this is entertaining, it only proves one thing.
> 
Being 100% correct protocol-wise means nothing, if the software can't 
fit well into an environment. Just a recent example off the top of my 
head: dnscache. Its security and DNS protocol support are astonishing. 
But due to it being unable to work reasonably under certain 
circumstances, and due to its author preferring to stick with the 
arguable RFC specification which is outright buggy, I was forced to go 
back to BIND. In reply to my post Jeremy Kister was kind enough to 
describe the problem very well: 
http://marc.info/?l=djbdns&m=125265930702615&w=2
and linked from above: 
http://securepoint.com/lists/html/djbdns/2007-01/msg00033.html