Re: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-radext-ipv6-acct-extensions-00

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

Why do you need separate counters for IPv6?

Is it because you want to have different counters for different IP technology at the same time in the accounting stream?

If yes there are other problems with that approach.  Accounting is used for both volume and time accounting.  While having distinct volume counters for one technology may solve the volume aspect it does not address the time aspect.  Consider the fact that even if you have both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled one may start at a different time then the other and one may stop at a different time then the other.

There are other information elements that are accounted for that may be specific to a particular IP technology and not the other.

As well, a user may have multiple IPv4 addresses and multiple IPv6 addresses.

So I am concerned that you are not really addressing all the issues.  

Separate accounting streams per IP session solves these problems.

What is the problem with having separate accounting streams per IP session?

> Hi Avi,
>   Thanks for your comments.
> 
> On 10-02-23 12:38 PM, Avi Lior wrote:
>> Hi,'
>> 
>> What makes you say that the existing accounting attributes for octet/packet counts are for IPv4 ?
> 
> You are right. They are not. They are not protocol specific. We are 
> looking to define separate counters for IPv6. We will change the wording 
> in the draft to correspond to this.
> 
>> 
>> Wouldn't the IP address contained in the IP session be sufficient to create the context for the accounting message?
> 
> This will require us to send two different messages (one for IPv6 only 
> and one for all protocols combined together).
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh


--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>