On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Jouni Malinen <j@xxxxx> wrote: > 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). That's fine. > 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. There isn't a need for old statistics. And (of course) RFC 2866 and later RFCs are silent on this topic. :( > Or is there some reason to avoid more frequent Interim-Update value > updates? Every 5 minutes is lots. More than that can be problematic. i.e. 10K users with 5 minute updates is ~30 packets/s. 20s updates are 500 packets/s. > 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.. RFC 5080 Section 2.2.1 contains recommended behaviour for retransmits and jitter. It doesn't, however, contain text about what to do when retransmissions overlap. I'll see if I can fix that: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5080 Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Hostap mailing list Hostap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/hostap
