WG 6.0 Enterprise licensing

[Eugene]

Hi.
I have WG 6.0 Enterprise license for 12 concurrent users.
Now WG 6.0.2 (build 1001) is installed.
At one time on WG server are connecting no more 5-10 users, but
in WG users database much more.
Part users are assumed by there PCs IP address, and part are working
on terminal server (Authenticated by HTTP based). For different users created 2 www proxy services: on port 80 (in policies for all users groups select "may be assumed") and on port 8080 for terminal users (select Basic authentication and in policies for all users groups select "may be unknown"). As well for some users groups there are ban lists and specify requests.
There is so problem:
While assumed users works - all ok, but when 1-3 terminal users begins work - WG bloking all users (says about license shortage). If i see active sessions in GK - no more 5-7 users are active at that time.
Can you help me about this problem?

[Pascal]

Do you have a frequent turnover of user connections? (Short-lived sessions)

[Eugene]

No. i dont see this.
Only in log files registered so strings:
____________________________________
192.168.xxx.yyy Guest 0000000000 License violation - too many connected users
____________________________________
1. I dont understand why user name is Guest. It must be assumed by IP.
2. At that time in GK no one connections visible.

[ScottW]

I too have been seeing the following message:-
"192.168.1.21 Guest 0000000000 License violation - too many connected users" since I installed Wingate 6 (I've tried each build up to 1000 so far).

It worked fine with the trial license but as soon as that expired my 50-user Enterprise license works for a bit and then stops many (possibly all?) of my users surfing (and the error above is logged at this point).

I'd be interested to see if anyone knows the reason for this message.

Is it a problem if we have "a frequent turnover of user connections"?

If there are no other posts to this thread I will post full details of my problem in a new thread. I just thought I'd add this comment for now though.

Regards,
Scott.[/quote]

[Pascal]

This would have been a problem with build prior to 6.0.2. It should be resolved if you are running 6.0.2 at the moment.

We are investigating today to see if we can duplicate this and will post back to this topic.