question on algorithm for radius based accouting
alex at corp.nac.net
Fri Aug 17 13:35:10 UTC 2007
> > They should yield (approximately) the same result. But, to be
> > pedantic,
> > you haven't accounted for latency within the network.
> Somebody should be whipped, either for:
> 2) You, for making even this aged arch-pedant wince. :-)
> Seriously, can I also add that RADIUS interim accounting is almost
> essential in this scenario. Real world accounting and session
> mis-match badly making it almost mandatory to use interim accounting
> records to get an approximation of what the figures look like from
> a billing perspective. I'll also add "watch out for missing records"
> - I've found RADIUS to be the lossiest network protocol per foot of
> cabling that I've ever used.
I can't say I've seen this.
Having collected hundreds of millions of radius packets in my years
(hell, we were running PM-2e's in 1996), and have written several
accounting collectors, I can't say I agree.
If you follow the specifications properly, unless you have issues with
the transmitting device (read: BUG), RADIUS accounting has always been
good to me.
And, I've not seen the behavior you describe that requires interim.
More information about the NANOG