Error: Received conflicting packet

[rihad]

Alan DeKok wrote:
> 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.
> 
Oh yeah? Isn't Cisco 7260 good enough for you?

>> 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?
> 
Explained what? What good is an explanation without testing it? True, I 
still haven't tested increasing the 1 second wait either.


>> 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?
> 
Didn't I say the Perl code might not be fast enough to handle hundreds 
of requests per second? Probably up to several thousand. What good will 
some sql/ldap/whatever tests do if I'm not going to be using them?

That said, I've increased cleanup_delay from 5 to 120, and max_requests 
from 10000 to 100000. Let's wait...