RFC 2866: RADIUS Accounting
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes a protocol for carrying accounting information between a Network Access Server and a shared Accounting Server. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC2866
- Published
- June 2000
- Authors
- C. Rigney
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- ops
- Pages
- 28
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoletes:
- RFC 2139
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 2059 (1997)
- RFC 2139 (1997)
- RFC 2866 (2000)
Referenced by
4 later RFCs formally update or obsolete part of this document.
- RFC 2867RADIUS Accounting Modifications for Tunnel Protocol SupportCurrent
June 2000
- RFC 5080Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and Suggested FixesCurrent
December 2007
- RFC 5997Use of Status-Server Packets in the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) ProtocolCurrent
August 2010
- RFC 9765RADIUS/1.1: Leveraging Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) to Remove MD5Current
April 2025
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2059RADIUS AccountingObsoleted
January 1997
- RFC 2809Implementation of L2TP Compulsory Tunneling via RADIUSCurrent
April 2000
- RFC 2621RADIUS Accounting Server MIBObsoleted
June 1999
- RFC 2620RADIUS Accounting Client MIBObsoleted
June 1999
- RFC 2619RADIUS Authentication Server MIBObsoleted
June 1999
- RFC 2548Microsoft Vendor-specific RADIUS AttributesCurrent
March 1999
- RFC 2881Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS ModelCurrent
July 2000
- RFC 2882Network Access Servers Requirements: Extended RADIUS PracticesCurrent
July 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?