Common combinations include:
-
Telecommunications exports
-
Mobile exports
-
Connect export
Some for load sharing
Some used for a link backup.
Some use different lines to sort things out.
However, regardless of the number of exports, schools and operators accept only one thing:
There can be only one set of fee rules.
In reality, many projects have stepped on the pits:
A set of fee-for-export strategies per export
Maintain one user status per export
And it turns out:
-
Users are double-counted under different exports.
-
Packages do not synchronize
-
Complex financial reconciliation
NATHHEL_BRAND'S METHODOLOGY NET-COUNTING SYSTEM“Exports”and“Charges”Complete decoupling.
Export is responsible for forwarding traffic.
The billing only happens in the flat-rate engine.
When terminal access is wireless:
-
Terminals first complete authentication
-
Authentication request forwarded to cloud counter engine
-
Billing engine verification account and suite status
-
Return Release or Restrict Strategy
The final export of the user by the operator is without prejudice to fee judgement.
That is:
Whatever the user may be from, the billing engine will always see the same user status.
In actual engineering, one is maintained for each online user within the system“Unified Session Status”。
This state includes:
-
User account
-
Type of package
-
Due
-
Allow bandwidth
-
Terminal Number
Export equipment only reads this state execution strategy and is not involved in calculations.
The immediate benefits of this are:
-
Increased number of exports without prejudice to the costing structure
-
New operator links, no new billing rules required
-
One adjustment to the package will be effective on a global scale.
In the multi-operability business scene, there is also a common problem:
Will the export switch trigger a re-costing?
The logic of the NATHHEL_BRAND treatment is:
Export Switch ≠ End of session
As long as the user session still exists:
-
No re-counting for the rest of the package.
-
No secondary deductions.
-
No recosting cycle
For users, it is only a change in network path that is perceived, not re-connected.
This is critical for operators.
Because once it comes out:
Export switch = recosting
User complaints are rapidly increasing.
Under the harmonized costing engine model:
-
Exports only carry traffic
-
The billing is only for the core engine.
Synchronize through state.
Another real question is:
Does the different operators have a different quality of their links, affecting the costing experience?
The system itself is not concerned with the quality of the links.
But the system can be aligned with export strategies:
-
Low-quality chain automatic drop rights
-
High-quality links are prioritized for high-bandwidth packages.
The billing engine only provides.“How much bandwidth is allowed for this user”Outcome.
Export equipment is allocated to the chain resources on the basis of results.
This synergy has led to:
Charges are in charge.“Who can use it, how long, how much?”
Export responsibility“Where to? Where to?”
Clear boundaries of responsibility.
From a long-term operational perspective, this structure has the following advantages:
Single point risk is manageable.
Even if an operator fails to export:
-
The billing system is still operational
-
User status still exists
-
Continue to use the original package after switching to another exit
There will be no large-scale recertification and recosting of schools.
In the middle-school network billing project, multiple operators are not complex, and complexity is how to keep the billing simple in a complex export context.
The core philosophy of NATHHEL_BRAND's campus network billing system is:
The more exports, the more intensive the billing.
The more complex the links, the more uniform the rules.
This is also key to the long-term stability of the system in multi-school, multi-export and multi-operator environments.