PacketFence - BTS - PacketFence | |||||
View Issue Details | |||||
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
0000758 | PacketFence | public | 2009-07-29 10:40 | 2011-01-26 15:43 | |
Reporter | obilodeau | ||||
Assigned To | obilodeau | ||||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Platform | OS | OS Version | |||
Product Version | |||||
Target Version | Fixed in Version | ||||
fixed in git revision | |||||
fixed in mtn revision | |||||
Summary | 0000758: vlan= statement in violations.conf should assume isolationVlan by default (hardcoded) | ||||
Description | The vlan statement in violations.conf was introduced in 1.8.4. Before the behavior was to always put a node that has violations in the isolationVlan. vlan= added some flexibility regarding that. But, on upgrade people tend to forget to add vlan= and the error is not as clear as it could be / should be. I think that if vlan= is not defined in [default] or in the [switch] where the bad node is in then isolationVlan could be returned. The only problem I see with that is for the 1200001 violation (system scan) where host needs to be in registrationVlan. It is specified in the config but on an upgrade if they forget [default] vlan= statement they will most likely forget this one as well. An UPGRADE file would have been handy.. | ||||
Steps To Reproduce | |||||
Additional Information | |||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Relationships | |||||
Attached Files | |||||
Issue History | |||||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change | ||
2009-07-29 10:40 | obilodeau | New Issue | |||
2009-08-19 15:55 | obilodeau | Status | new => assigned | ||
2009-08-19 15:55 | obilodeau | Assigned To | => obilodeau | ||
2009-10-26 11:08 | obilodeau | Note Added: 0001363 | |||
2009-10-26 11:08 | obilodeau | Status | assigned => resolved | ||
2009-10-26 11:08 | obilodeau | Resolution | open => fixed | ||
2011-01-26 15:43 | obilodeau | Status | resolved => closed |
Notes | |||||
|
|||||
|
|