PEAP MSCHAPv2 with local user?

[kilobravo]

Hi,

I'd like to setup 802.1x with  peap (mschapv2) as the authentication method for a specific SSID on my wireless, and for those credentials to be stored on the A3 server. Looking through the 3 V5.0 installation guide though, I came across the paragraph under "Use Case 3: Local User Authentication":

Local user registrations are characterized by a user login, password, email address, usage
time window, and network access role. The local user facility, however, cannot be used for
802.1X authentication.

I also come across this, which seems to say that I can: Solution: How to use 802.1x local databases with A3 | Extreme Portal

So the question is, what I'm trying to do, is it possible?

[kate247s]

---

@kilobravo wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to setup 802.1x with  peap (mschapv2) as the authentication method for a specific SSID on my wireless, and for those credentials to be stored on the A3 server. Looking through the 3 V5.0 installation guide though, I came across the paragraph under "Use Case 3: Local User Authentication":

Local user registrations are characterized by a user login, password, email address, usage
time window, and network access role. The local user facility, however, cannot be used for
802.1X authentication.

I also come across this, which seems to say that I can: Solution: How to use 802.1x local databases with A3 | Extreme Portal

So the question is, what I'm trying to do, is it possible?

---

Enjoyed reading the article above, really explains everything in detail, and the article is very interesting and effective. Thank you and good luck with the upcoming articles.

[Robert_Haynes]

Without saying it is or isn't possible I think the interpretation here is that by default, what you are seeking to do is not possible -- because it is not something you can configure solely within the confines of the GUI. If the article is accurate, it suggests that modifying system files under-the-hood would allow for such functionality. In the end however modification of system files under-the-hood in this manner is generally unsupported. It's unclear why this was documented as a workaround/solution.

[kilobravo]

Thanks for replying Robert.

So in short,  the guidance from extreme is to avoid as it's not a supported design/configuration?