Re: question on algorithm for radius based accouting

[Hugh Irvine <hugh () open com au>]

On 17 Aug 2007, at 23:35, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> > Seriously, can I also add that RADIUS interim accounting is almost
> > essential in this scenario. Real world accounting and session
> > boundaries
> > 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.

This sort of thing tends to happen in "wholesale" operations where  
the downstream has a congested link.

> 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.

You can sometimes improve this situation by transporting the RADIUS  
requests over some form of TCP tunnel.

> And, I've not seen the behavior you describe that requires interim.

DSL and/or cable systems usually have long-held connections that  
often cross billing boundaries - interim accounting is useful in this  
scenario.

Dialup connections are not usually long enough to warrant interim  
accounting.

regards

Hugh