[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-radext-ipv6-acct-extensions-00
thanks for your comments.
From: Alan DeKok [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:22 PM
To: Maglione Roberta
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Alan Kavanagh; Suresh Krishnan; Varga Balázs
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-radext-ipv6-acct-extensions-00
Maglione Roberta wrote:
> Hi All,
> we have just posted a new draft about RADIUS attributes for IPv6 statistics:
> Your comments are welcome.
[RFC2866]and [RFC2869] specify RADIUS attributes to be used for
carrying statistics regarding how many packets/octets/Gigawords have
been sent/received over a port while delivering the service. These
attributes are IPv4 specific.
That isn't correct. RFC 2866 has *no* references to IPv4. I suggest
[RM] ok, we will delete it
With the introduction of the IPv6 in
broadband environment there is a need to be able to collect IPv4 and
IPv6 statistics separately, thus new RADIUS attribute have to be
That might be true, and is a better problem statement than the previous
[RM] This is the main intent of document
However, there is a LOT of information that could potentially be
carried in RADIUS accounting. There have been requests to track data
down to specific applications and/or ports. These suggestions have a
number of problems in practice. (Which I won't go into here.)
This section repeats existing definitions of RADIUS accounting. I
suggest deleting it.
This section defines six new RADIUS attributes for IPv6 statistics.
These attributes correspond to the attributes Acct-Input-Octets,
Acct-Output-Octets,Acct-Input-Packets, Acct-Output-Packets, Acct-
Input-Gigawords and Acct-Output-Gigawords as defined in
[RFC2866][RFC2869] that are defined for collecting combined
statistics for IPv4 and IPv6 traffic.
This last sentence directly contradicts the sentence in the
introduction. It would be good to have the document internally consistent.
[RM] We will re-word this sentence to make it consistent
Since service providers may
like to collect statistics for IPv6 traffic separately from IPv4
traffic, separate counters for IPv6 traffic are needed.
Repetition of the justification is unnecessary, and can be deleted.
It would be good to add a sentence or two on how these attributes
interact with the existing counters. e.g. how IPv4-specific counters
can be derived.
[RM] ok we will add it
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.