in vs. out

[wlan at mac.com]

>
>   Acct-Input-Octets has one meaning: the right one.
>
>   You don't have to interoperate with broken vendors.  You tell  
> users to
> throw the equipment away, and to buy working equipment.

For some, that is not very economical - nor environmentally friendly :)

I started the list; sorry, I couldn't help myself and started it here:
http://coova.org/wiki/index.php/Template:NASVendorAccountingTable

I took a perhaps less hostile classification than 'broken' - and  
labeled them as having a "AC" or "Client" perspective. Of course, the  
Access Controller/NAS  is the right meaning as defined in this forum.  
As you can see, there is a bit of an issue. In a Gemtek manual, they  
mention the problem - explaining the Client and AC point's of view,  
but still ultimately defaults to the Client perspective with an  
option to reverse. As for coova-chilli, I actually (yes, I'm ready  
for the public ass-kicking) changed the accounting to be like that of  
Gemtek - with the option to toggle. At the time, my objective was  
purely compatibility with back-ends already built for some of the  
vendors in this list.

If anyone has better information, which is highly likely, please do  
make changes.

Huh, I wonder if there was something originally 'lost in translation'  
with how this got implemented. With some Googling, I came across:

	http://www.gsmworld.com/documents/wlan/ir61.pdf

Which states for Acct-Input-Octets: "Volume of the downstream traffic  
of the User" and Output-Octets with "upstream traffic of the user".  
That sounds rather Client centric -- it's not to / from the User, for  
instance. Are we expecting too much from the (off-shore) out-sourcing  
companies? :)

David