Re: (PM) Is it a known bug....

Thomas Kinnen (tkinnen@livingston.com)
Fri, 07 May 1999 10:12:58 -0700

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Thomas Kinnen: "Re: (PM) Reported Address"
Previous message: James Courtier-Dutton: "RE: (PM) sh global"
Maybe in reply to: MED, Wipro Systems, Inc: "(PM) Is it a known bug...."

"Nair, Shibu (MED, Wipro Systems, Inc)" wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I created a net user with a "NEGotiated" address specification(set
> netuser xxx addd neg) on PM4. And then dialed from a Windows 95 machine
> using "Dialup networking" ...
> It was connected to PM4 and then shown as "verifying login and passwd"
> and then failed... This problem i faced in PM3 also... Actually this
> method will work fine if we configre the ip address of the windows 95
> machine on the netuser table of PM4/PM3....

Run a PPP debug and see if the Win95 Machine is requesting the address. Also
this is VERY DANGEROUS. A user could hijack the address of your core router
and do "bad Things". You should in almost all cases use assigned or a static
IP.

-- 
Thomas C Kinnen - <tkinnen@ra.lucent.com> <tkinnen@sobhrach.com>
[RADIUS Test Engineer] - LUCENT Technologies RABU
"All of the opinions stated above are my own and not my employer's,
unless they were given to me by my employer"
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>

Next message: Thomas Kinnen: "Re: (PM) Reported Address"
Previous message: James Courtier-Dutton: "RE: (PM) sh global"
Maybe in reply to: MED, Wipro Systems, Inc: "(PM) Is it a known bug...."