Real mature network billing software never goes.“Rob!”The switchboard, the AC, the AP work, rather than the opposite: it must know exactly what must be in its own hands and what must not be touched. Only if borders are clear can projects be scaled up instead of being carried out by field engineers on an ad hoc basis.
Before discussing the control boundaries of network billing software and switchboards, AC, AP, it is important to make clear that there is only one core responsibility for web billing software.——Resolves“Let it go.”。
As for...“How do we transmit the data?”“How do you get the signal?”“How do you get the link?”, none of which is within the scope of the concern about network billing software.
Start with the bottom switch.
In most cable network settings, the functions of the switchboard are clear and stable: port access, VLAN division, second or third level transmission, basic security strategy. These capabilities are mature and should not be replaced.
The boundary between network billing software and the switchboard is usually reflected at two levels.
First, switchboard.“Access”Network billing software is responsible“Access”。
The switchboard can determine whether an port is physically connected, but it should not decide whether the user of the portal is eligible to access the Internet. Whether access to the extranet is allowed or access to the fee process, such decision-making must be uniformly left to network billing software.
In the switch environment that supports external Portal or RADIUS, the switch is only responsible for transferring authentication requests to network billing software, and ultimately release or not returns the result from network billing software. Under this mode, the switchboard is completely unaware of the fee logic.
Secondly, the switch should not bear the logic of costing.
Some projects like to stack strategies on switches, trying to achieve simple charge control in the form of ports, VLAN, and ACL. This is a practice that is barely available in small-scale settings, but quickly out of control once it involves a package, maturity, simultaneous distribution, end number.
A truly sustainable network billing software must be all-“Money.”The relevant judgement, strip away from the switch.
Look at the AC again.
AC is a wireless access controller whose core capabilities are wireless terminal management, AP control, radio frequency dispatch, SSID management, etc.“Ports congregate.”But it's not a good idea.“Business Logic Centre”。
The most easy pit to step on in the context of network billing software and AC is for AC to bear authentication, billing and tactical judgement at the same time.
If AC itself supports external Portal or external authentication interfaces, the ideal state is that AC is responsible only for directing terminals to network billing software and all account numbers, packages, maturities, simultaneous judgements are completed in network billing software.
In this model, the AC is configured in a very stable manner and the project replication costs are minimal.
If AC is forced to bear the excessive fee logic, once the project has been scaled up and its strategy modified frequently, it will become the most problematic node in the entire network.
And down is AP.
AP should be the most in the system“Stupid.”The equipment. It's only two things: signaling, receiving the terminal.
Network billing software should never interact directly with AP, let alone stack the authentication and costing logic on AP. The result is often that every additional AP is added to the system 's complexity increases exponentially.
The more the APs are, the more stable the system is, not the other way around.
What really needs to be focused on is how network billing software should intervene when the existing network environment does not support external Portal or uniform authentication.
That's what Authentication Gateway exists for.
In old projects or complex networks, by adding Authentication Gateway to export positions, all can be taken“Released decision”A single point is completed. Switches, aCs, APs do not require any changes to their original configurations and network billing software achieves uniform control through the gateway.
In this model, the borders are clearer:
Switchboards, ACs, APs continue to do what they're good at; network billing software determines who gets off the net and who has to charge; all billings and strategic logic are managed centrally.
From an integrated perspective, this border demarcation also has the most realistic benefit: clarity of responsibilities.
When problems arise, it is easy to judge whether access issues, wireless issues or fee-for-money strategies are relevant rather than graft.
From a commercial perspective, clarity of boundaries also means that the system has long-term evolutionary capabilities.
Today, it may be just a cleaning charge. Tomorrow we add Seamless Authentication with end-point limits and then we can go back to multiple sets of meals, multi-areas, multi-project management. If the costing logic is spread from the beginning on the switchboard, AC, AP, every step will turn into disaster.
NATSHEL_BRAND has long maintained a principle in the area of network billing software: network equipment is responsible for network stability and network billing software is responsible for business rules. The clearer the control of boundaries, whether it be wired, wireless or mixed, the more efficient and stable the project will be.
For an integrator who really wants to make a project into a long-term business, the choice of network billing software is not essentially a list of functions but a set.“Clear and long-term control of borders”The system.