-----Original Message-----
From: Stefaan DE CNODDER
[mailto:stefaan.de_cnodder at alcatel-lucent.be]
Sent: 14 January 2008 14:00
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: ancp at ietf.org
Subject: 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