On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:44:27PM +0000, Nick Lowe wrote: > Thinking more about the Interim-Update case, whether or not to resend > an Accounting-Request packet of this form should depend on when the > end of the next interval will fall. > > If, for example, the end next interval is not going to be until 5 > minutes away, hostapd absolutely should not wait until then to retry. I was assuming that retries for Interim-Update would happen with the same timing as they do now, but instead of being retries with same statistics and new Acct-Delay-Time value, they would have new statistics and no Acct-Delay-Time (or 0 if we get to implementing Acct-Delay-Time for some cases). In other words, if the attribute values are going to change, go ahead and update all the dynamic data at the same time. I don't really see why there would be need for retrying an Interim-Update with the old statistics. Or is there some reason to avoid more frequent Interim-Update value updates? I'd assume not especially taken into account RFC 2869 language on NAS having option to override the interval and also use of a fudge factor on the interval.. -- Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
