Re: Billing 3: WAS(Re: [PATCH 2/4] deferred drop, __parent workaround, reshape_fail , netdev@oss.sgi.com ,

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 12:12:04PM -0400, jamal wrote:

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 09:40, sandr8 wrote:

quoted

jamal wrote:

quoted

quoted

Yes, this is a hard question. Did you see the suggestion i proposed
to Harald?
 

if it is the centralization of the stats with the reason code that,
for what concerns the ACCT, says wheter to bill or unbill i
think it is _really_ great :)
still, for what concerns the multiple interface delivery of the
same packet i don't see how it would be solved...

Such packets are cloned or copied. I am going to assume the contrack
data remains intact in both cases. LaForge?

Yes. But still it is a question of viewpoint what kind of behaviour is
correct.  Let's say a single packet is accounted in ct_acct, and then
sent to multiple interfaces, where on more than one of them it gets
unbilled.  So we add once, but 'unbill' (i prefer the term subtract)
more than once.   In the end the ct_acct counter will be less than when
it first encountered the packet.

In the future we should make accounting a feature that could be turned
on despite contracking and skbs should carry an accounting metadata with
them. 

I don't really understand what you want to say.  You want accounting
that is not conntrack-based?  well, then you should maybe look at
one of the many methods, ranging from iptables rule counters to the ipt_acct match/target, nacctd, pcap-mmap, PF_RING, ULOG-based, ...

btw, they all account the amount of RX packet on inbound interface and
do not 'unbill' ;)

-- 
- Harald Welte [off-list ref]             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie