Error: Received conflicting packet

[Alan DeKok]

rihad wrote:
> Trying for the third time:

  Do you have any intention of reading the messages here?

> there are many, many requests of the
> "Discarding conflicting packet" kind, which for one reason or another
> are dupped by our Cisco NASes in under one second (see the code). And
> there are many, many lines of the "Received conflicting packet" fame
> (see the code).

  If (as you say) the NAS is sending a conflicting packet within 1
second of the first one, then the NAS is broken.  It SHOULD wait 5
seconds for the old request to time out, before sending a new one that
re-uses the same IP/port/Id.

  Take your NAS, and throw it in the garbage.  Buy a real NAS that
implements RADIUS.

> Now, it can be logically deduced that a big part of the
> latter are indeed of the former type (because none of the NASes have
> timeouts as low as 2-5 seconds). What I'd really love is for freeradius
> to stop killing the current request after receiving a dup 2-5 seconds
> apart.

  That won't solve anything.  This has been explained to you.

  Did you understand the explanation, or are you simply ignoring it?

> It's no problem for me to patch and rebuild freeradius myself, I
> just thought it wouldn't be fair not to share that idea with others.

  Thanks.  And we shared our opinions... and you told us we were wrong.

>> Stop hacking the server and start looking at your perl code. Do you
>> really
>> need to use it for authentication? Can you get all the data in authorize
>> script and let freeradius default modules do the authentication (that can
>> speed things up quite a bit)? Can you get (some of) the data using
>> freeradius sql/ldap/whatever modules instead?
>>
> 
> The rlm_perl authorization/accounting is dealing with traffic shaping,
> so I'd rather fix this freeradius' shortcoming.

  That response completely ignores the question.  Did you understand it?

  Alan DeKok.