https://redmine.pfsense.org/https://redmine.pfsense.org/favicon.ico?16780521162015-12-17T15:33:52ZpfSense bugtrackerpfSense - Bug #5652: Radius IETF Class Group Assignment - Incorrect Standardhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5652?journal_id=234682015-12-17T15:33:52ZJim Pingle
<ul></ul><p>FYI- FreeRADIUS sends it back as text and is extremely difficult to change, which is why we use text. It may be possible for it to be an option, would need to be investigated further however.</p> pfSense - Bug #5652: Radius IETF Class Group Assignment - Incorrect Standardhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5652?journal_id=284582016-07-28T11:28:06ZPhillip Hernandez
<ul></ul><p>I disagree with using Cisco-AV:Pair and believe that using Filter-Id is a better option.</p>
<p>Thanks</p> pfSense - Bug #5652: Radius IETF Class Group Assignment - Incorrect Standardhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5652?journal_id=284612016-07-28T11:56:22ZJay ShepherdNuttycomputer@hotmail.com
<ul></ul><p>Phillip Hernandez wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I disagree with using Cisco-AV:Pair and believe that using Filter-Id is a better option.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Any particular reason against using Cisco-AV:Pair? It's widely implemented by a lot of vendors both on the Radius Server side and on the client side.</p>
<p>I'm against using Filter-ID as it has the same problem the class attribute has in that the string must be represented as series of octets instead of plain text. Given that the first comment by Jim indicates FreeRADIUS does not correctly transpose to octets for the Class(25) attribute I'm uncertain if it would for Filter-ID.</p> pfSense - Bug #5652: Radius IETF Class Group Assignment - Incorrect Standardhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/5652?journal_id=412702019-08-13T13:39:46ZJim Pingle
<ul><li><strong>Category</strong> set to <i>Authentication</i></li></ul>