Anonymous | Login | 2024-08-31 19:06 EDT | ![]() |
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap |
View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] | [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | |||||||
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||
0001026 | PacketFence | core | public | 2010-07-05 13:56 | 2011-04-13 10:05 | |||
Reporter | obilodeau | |||||||
Assigned To | obilodeau | |||||||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | have not tried | |||
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | |||||
Platform | OS | OS Version | ||||||
Product Version | ||||||||
Target Version | Fixed in Version | 2.1.0 | ||||||
Summary | 0001026: PacketFence does not handle very well the AutoReg violation in some cases | |||||||
Description | We have a client with a big network and more than 2k VoIP phones plugged on Nortel switches. With Nortel switches, we have to manage VoIP phones because PF needs to authorize each phone on a port. We enabled the Autoreg violation and configured it so that all devices with a a Nortel Phone DHCP fingerprint are automatically registered. The issue is that everytime a phone renew its IP, PF tries to trigger a violation, which is always closed eventhough the phone is registered. By looking at the logs and the load on the machine, I realized that this situation/setup results in a non-negligeable useless work overload on the server. So I'm wondering if, for that particular Autoreg violation, we should not think of a different way to manage things. What is the point of creating a autoreg violation for a device that is already registered ?!?. Should we really use a violation for this ? I'm still not sure this is an issue though... just throwing ideas in that ticket. | |||||||
Tags | No tags attached. | |||||||
fixed in git revision | ||||||||
fixed in mtn revision | 0e8a2dbb9050898a69fe54542bbae90ccc391101 | |||||||
Attached Files | ![]() | |||||||
![]() |
||||||
|
![]() |
|
(0001878) obilodeau (reporter) 2011-02-23 16:21 edited on: 2011-02-23 16:29 |
faced a problem today related to this. autoregistering a node did a VLAN re-evaluation of the switch-port and this had consequences on the phone plugged in or the PC depending on whether a PC was there or not. Avoiding the violation creation when the node is already reg would solve this and the above performance problem so I'm going through with this. |
(0001879) obilodeau (reporter) 2011-02-24 09:25 |
fixed: Violation with action autoreg is only triggered if node is not registered. |
![]() |
|||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
2010-07-05 13:56 | rbalzard | New Issue | |
2010-07-28 13:04 | obilodeau | Relationship added | related to 0001042 |
2010-11-19 14:25 | obilodeau | Target Version | 1.10.0 => 2.0.0 |
2011-01-18 09:47 | obilodeau | Target Version | 2.0.0 => 2.1.0 |
2011-02-23 16:21 | obilodeau | Note Added: 0001878 | |
2011-02-23 16:22 | obilodeau | Reporter | rbalzard => obilodeau |
2011-02-23 16:22 | obilodeau | Assigned To | => obilodeau |
2011-02-23 16:22 | obilodeau | Status | new => assigned |
2011-02-23 16:22 | obilodeau | Category | performance => core |
2011-02-23 16:22 | obilodeau | Target Version | 2.1.0 => 2.0.2 |
2011-02-23 16:29 | obilodeau | Note Edited: 0001878 | |
2011-02-24 09:25 | obilodeau | mtn revision | => 0e8a2dbb9050898a69fe54542bbae90ccc391101 |
2011-02-24 09:25 | obilodeau | Note Added: 0001879 | |
2011-02-24 09:25 | obilodeau | Status | assigned => resolved |
2011-02-24 09:25 | obilodeau | Fixed in Version | => 2.0.2 |
2011-02-24 09:25 | obilodeau | Resolution | open => fixed |
2011-03-03 15:20 | obilodeau | Fixed in Version | 2.0.2 => 2.1.0 |
2011-03-03 15:25 | obilodeau | Status | resolved => closed |
2011-04-13 10:05 | obilodeau | File Added: violation-autoreg-only-if-node-not-reg.patch |
Copyright © 2000 - 2012 MantisBT Group |