Subject: Re: nasreq Re: On Demand Accounting...

From: [email-masked] (Patrice Calhoun)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 13:55:27 -0800

In my opinion, synchronization of session state SHOULD NOT be done
as part of the accounting process, but rather through the authorization
portion of the protocol(s).

Today we use the accounting protocol simply due to some missing features
in the RADIUS protocol.

(btw, this simple feature is not enough to provide state re-synchronization.
lots more is needed, if this *is* a feature).

PatC
>
>I doubt that one can get rid of On Demand Accounting as described 
>in 8.4.1.6 of <draft-ietf-nasreq-criteria-03.txt>. The issue is 
>the ability to query state of existing sessions on the NAS. 
>Accounting subsystem might be one user of that information 
>(or particular information elements that would depend on NAS 
>and service type).
>
>regards,
>nenad
>
>
>>Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 10:45 -0800 (PST)
>>From: [email-masked] (Patrice Calhoun)
>>To: [email-masked],
>>    [email-masked]
>>Sender: [email-masked]
>>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>>Delivered-to: [email-masked]
>>Subject: On Demand Accounting...
>>
>>All,
>>
>>Given the arguments that have recently been discussed against the use of
>>On-Demand Accounting, and specifically how it doesn't scale well in an
>>Inter-Domain network, should it *still* be a requirement?
>>
>>I believe that NASREQ is the only WG that had such a requirement. Can we
>>eliminate this from the matrix?
>>
>>PatC
>>
>>