mjk

Yes you will need to fix this first. Remember that the wireless controller is the client in this context - you can auth them together with a shared secret. There should also be an connection request policy to allow users to connect (all days/times) and authenticate. After this is done you can add your network policies.

Yes this is how we do it - but we don't do vlan assignments through smoothwall. What we do is have the wireless controller configured to authenticate to a radius server that is a windows NPS. The NPS decides which vlan the student/staff should be on based upon their Active Directory group membership, it sends this information back to the wireless controller that assigns the vlan.The NPS server also sends an accounting packet to the smoothwall, the smoothwall uses this information to identify the user.

We've been able to remove the smoothwall as the accounting server from the wireless controller config, replace it with windows NPS and have the NPS forward the accounting information to BOTH smoothwall servers. transparent proxy is now identified on both smoothwalls. Failover using pac file using method : if isInNet(myIpAddress(), "ip","subnet")) {return PROXY A ; PROXY B;} is a bit hit and miss. doesn't seem to fail over very well. Any ideas ?

Seems ok so far. We've only just put the second one in so I'll tell you when term starts! The 'slave' system just replicates all the settings from the primary. We've load balanced using pac files and wccp. In theory the pac files and wccp will failover if one goes down but not tried that!. I looked into redundancy as per smoothwall documentation and got the impression that it was load balancing OR redundancy because the redundant machine takes over the ip address of the master system, hence didn't think load balancing would work or be very easy using that method. If anyone knows different please enlighten me! For some reason our UTM-1000 is licensed for redundancy but the S8 is not so don't know how that works!.

So it turns out that the transparent proxy load-balances perfectly across two servers, but only one picks up the username and the other has to do ident by location.

Does anyone know if this Is this possible before i spend too much time on it? We have Radius authentication so that students log into the WiFi with their active directory username/password. This then puts them onto the correct student VLAN and also sends an accounting packet to Smoothwall that authenticates them so they can use transparent proxy mode but also be identified. We now have two smoothwall servers that are load balanced. I can add a secondary accounting server (the IP of the secondary smoothwall) to the Meru controller, but I'm not sure if it is secondary because it is fail-over or because it is used for load balancing. Does anyone know ? On the smoothwall side, does anyone know if the master server will send the secondary server the Radius auth info?

The batteries probably overheated, leaked, gave of Hydrogen and caught fire.

I would throw it all out and replace it all with chromebooks. Perhaps with a SIMS/RDP in the cloud somewhere if I absolutely had to.

I think I'm starting to understand it, EES gives you the right to upgrade but only after you have purchased at the massively hiked cost. Our incumbent NM didn't bother with EES and I don't really seeing the benefit of the scheme as we will be sticking with W7 for the foreseeable future, everything we buy has W7 pro licenses already, by the time they are binned the new ones will come with w10 anyway.

The AP management should support band steering without the need to do anything on the client. Most likely cause is distance, that 2.4GHz will have a stronger signal at a longer range.

Just had a chat with out supplier and he reckons it's going to cost £40-50. So a mere 4000% increase rather than the higher number I was lead to believe.

It's because we were buying OEM for £1 and now we will need to pay £57. The cost will be lightly less for EES subscribers as a percentage because they were essentially paying twice, once for the EES subscription and once for the OEM copy.

Thanks @tmcd35 That seems to be quite definitive, and does seem to indicate a 5700% price increase for non-EES customers!

Yes point three does seem to be confusing. It all seems moot now as we will all need to be paying full price for the licenses anyhow. edit: I suppose at a stretch all I would have to do to be fully complicit would be to re-image with the boatware and just deploy software via group policy or another method, perhaps with a startup script to remove anything I didn't need.

From the link you posted: So we buy a bunch of machines, remove the bloatware, make an image, redeploy. All seems legal to me.

I don't think that is correct because our MS rep told us we can have windows pro licenses on the PC and then just buy CALS using the schools agreement - which is what we do. ie £1 for windows and £1.50 for CAL. MS also say it is ok to use an OEM image to re-image, so we do that too. This is a massive price increase here.

If you think it is bad for EES subscribers have it bad, just think of non-EES subscribers. We were paying £1 per license for windows and now we pay £57. 5700% increase ???

In this case it is likely that they setup one domain and that yours is a subdomain of that. If this is the situation they won't be able to release s subdomain to you and you'll nave to go for a manual export for files. mail should be easy enough. It's possible to do all of this in the API so it might be a good idea to get hold of a Google partner who has built tools to do this.

If they can sign it over to you it would be better because yhen you can create a subdomain of the original domain and transfer your files/accounts. AFAIK you can't do inter-domain transfers unless one is a subdomain of another, the only way would be an IMAP transfer for email and a scripted download upload for files which would be a ball ache.

probably another re-branding exercise

I thought they'd been killing it off since 2009

I suppose that explains why a windows server takes up so much disk space then :-)

Nonsense. If a company offers a contract that meets the adequacy and security requirements of the EU commissions data protection directive, is signed up to safe harbour it doesn't immediately breach the DPA at all.

Chrome extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/screencastify-screen-vide/mmeijimgabbpbgpdklnllpncmdofkcpn?hl=en Saves directly to local machine or Google drive. Deployed from GAFE.

I don't think Microsoft Licensing has ever won any Crystal Mark awards for clarity!