[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ANCP] Multicast Accounting




Woj,

The framework draft currently does not exclude anything. Both options are possible. The case where the AN is counting the packets and measuring the time is also in the framework and this information can be sent directly from the AN to the accounting server (which might be the NAS itself of course) with another protocol than ANCP like Radius for instance. Actually, section 3.4.3 has to be read as whole and not just the part I copy/pasted in the email. The question is basically if this section is Ok for everyone.

From a protocol point of view, this means that each entry in the white list has the following information: indication whether accounting is needed or not, and if needed, whehter the accounting is performed by the NAS or by the AN. In the latter case, also the IP address of the accounting servers are specified.

regards,
Stefaan


Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
Hi Stefaan,

it doesn't seem that we have agreement on this text, and an alternative
proposal is presented in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00408.html.

---snip---
in Section "3.4.3 Multicast Accounting"


replace:
"
o The AN keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and
reports this information to the NAS for further processing. In
this case, ANCP can be used to send the information from the AN to
the NAS. This can be done with the Information Report message.
The NAS can then generate the appropriate time and/or volume
accounting information per Access Loop and per multicast flow, to
be sent to the accounting system. The ANCP requirements to
support this approach are specified in this document.
"
by
"
o The AN keeps track of when replication for a given multicast flow
starts or stops and then the AN can convey time and/or volume
information to
the NAS for further processing. This approach relies on ANCP and is
discussed below.


---snip---

In general for accounting to be of use it needs to be fairly accurate,
hence it is highly desirable for the access node to present to the NAS
the time and/or volume information for further processing. Granted that
if access nodes are not capable of providing such information, they will
only signal simple start/stop events. I however don't see why the
framework and protocol should be limited only to this latter variant. Is
there a reason why the proposal presented by Francois is inadequate?

Regards,
Woj.


-----Original Message-----
From: Stefaan DE CNODDER [mailto:stefaan.de_cnodder at alcatel-lucent.be] Sent: 08 January 2008 14:13
To: ancp at ietf.org
Subject: [ANCP] Multicast Accounting



Hi,

At the last IETF meeting, there was a discussion about multicast accounting is supposed to work. Currently, the framework document mentions 2 options in section 3.4.3:

---
o The AN keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and
generates the time and/or volume based accounting information per
Access Loop and per multicast flow, before sending it to a central
accounting system for logging. Since the AN communicates with
this accounting system directly, the approach doesn't require the
use of ANCP. It is therefore beyond the scope of this document;


o The AN keeps track of when replication starts or stops, and
reports this information to the NAS for further processing. In
this case, ANCP can be used to send the information from the AN to
the NAS. This can be done with the Information Report message.
The NAS can then generate the appropriate time and/or volume
accounting information per Access Loop and per multicast flow, to
be sent to the accounting system. The ANCP requirements to
support this approach are specified in this document.
---


Is everyone Ok with this? Is more needed, or less, or more clarrification on what it means?

Personally, it looks Ok to me but I have a comment for extra clarrification on the first bullet: Does it require any impact on the ANCP protocol? For the second bullet, I would expect that in a white list entry there is a flag indicating whether accounting is needed or not. Is something similar needed to support the first bullet in a white list entry (e.g., need for time and/or volume based accounting with the IP address of acct server)? Whatever is fine for me, but it has to be decided.

regards,
Stefaan



_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp




_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp