The toggle to turn this off is supposed to be available in ver 8.X.....if your max can get that version, that is....

not avail for 1800s or 2000s...only 800, 3ks.....6ks....

I'm currently writing a radius workaround for this garbage....I have complained to Ascend/Lucent to create a 7.X OS patch that addresses this but have not heard that they are willing to put any resources on it.
e

-----Original Message-----
From: gzeigler@texasonline.net [mailto:gzeigler@texasonline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:11 AM
To: ascend-users@bungi.com
Cc: gzeigler@texasonline.net
Subject: FW: RE: (ASCEND) Unresolved meaningless traffic from Max

Yes, my sentiments too. This traffic is annoying and needless, so far as my purposes.

My radius software DOES ignore this traffic after a short time, however. Or so it seems.

Gordon Zeigler

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/3/2000 at 7:50 AM Troy Settle wrote:

>Steve,
>
>Did you read the books that came with your Ascend unit?  There *is* a
>section in there that explains what the max is trying to do.
>
>I know you've been on this list long enough to see at least 5 or 6 people
>complain about this, and 10 or 20 people respond back to say that yes, it
>is annoying as hell, but no, there's nothing we can do about it.  Ascend
>refuses to give us the ability turn this annoyance off.
>
>Hint for you though...  you'll only see this on power up and when screwing
>around with the Max's ethernet config.
>
>--
>  Troy Settle
>  Network Analyst
>  Picus Communications
>  540.633.6327
>
>
>** -----Original Message-----
>** From: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com
>** [mailto:owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com]On Behalf Of Steve Hovey
>** Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:58 PM
>** To: ascend-users@bungi.com
>** Subject: (ASCEND) Unresolved bad unit
>**
>**
>**
>** I didnt get anywhere with tech on a box that was producing odd logfile
>** entries in radius - and not validating users.
>**
>** I have since found on my own that the odd entries are rem cfg load
>** requests, but I've no idea why it would try to issue one since
>** I have term
>** serv to no/off.
>**
>** Anyone ever hit this?  The log entries look like this (the
>** values in ''s
>** are the params its trying to load info on):
>**
>** Tue May  2 21:31:44 2000: Authentication: 19/175 'frdlink--1' from
>** asc3.buffnet.
>** net port 0 Outbound - FAILED Authentication failure -- total
>** 0, holding 0
>** Tue May  2 21:31:44 2000: Authentication: 20/176 'bridge--1' from
>** asc3.buffnet.n
>** et port 0 Outbound - FAILED Authentication failure -- total 0,
>** holding 0
>** Tue May  2 21:31:44 2000: Authentication: 21/177 'initial-banner-' from
>** asc3.buf
>** fnet.net port 0 Outbound - FAILED Authentication failure -- total 0,
>** holding 0
>** Tue May  2 21:31:44 2000: Received-Authentication: 25/181
>** 'initial-banner'
>** from
>**
>**
>** ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
>** To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
>** To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
>**
>
>++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
>To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
>To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>