The first four articles deal with selection, technology, wiring, and landscape differences. And the last one deals with future trends. School network billing is not a static thing, technology is evolving, demand changing, and our planning and selection are forward looking.
IPv6 from“Support”Here.“Use it.”There's still a distance.
Most campus network billing systems now claim to be“Support IPv6”But not much of an IPv6. Many schools have IPV6“It's with but not really used.”The state.
Why? Because IPv6 addresses planning, security management, Log Audit, is completely different from IPV4. The billing system needs to be able to handle the IPv6 session, the IPv6, the IPv6 log. These are not simple.“Support for IPv6”That's all.
I've seen some schools have IPv6 deployments, and address planning is random, making it difficult to trace later logs.“Support”No practical significance.
The mandatory deployment of IPv6 will be pushed away in the coming years as the IPv4 address becomes more tense. The billing system needs to be fully supported by IPv6 ahead of schedule, including: IPv6 address management; IPv6 session billing; IPv6 NATSHEL_LOG_AUDIT; and IPv4/IPv6 double-trip strategy.
AI's a carrier. It's not a prank, it's a practical tool.
The log data accumulated by the system are very large and are inefficient with manual analysis.
First, the anomaly. The AI model can learn from normal authentication/counting patterns and detect anomalies. For example: a large number of downloads at night, an IP frequency failure, and an abnormal surge in traffic in a given area. These anomalies are difficult to cover by manual rules, which AI can do.
Second, capacity projections. Based on historical data, the number of users projected for the coming period will increase, the flow will grow, and the bandwidth expansion and server upgrades will be guided.“Get a head shot.”Much more precisely.
Third, smart drains. AI can recommend possible failure points and screening steps based on a malfunction. Although not 100% accurate, it can significantly reduce the average recovery time.
I tried to deploy simple abnormal detection models in a school, and I succeeded in discovering an account sharing act (a multi-person account) well in advance, which is difficult to find in traditional rules.
Cloudy deployment.
Many systems are now moving to the clouds, and billing systems are no exception. Cloudization deployment is beneficial and risky.
Benefits: Flexible magnification, reduced transport costs and easier to achieve with high-availability structures.
Risks: strong web dependency (locally affected by the cloud), data privacy compliance issues (user access to data cannot be easily released) and time delays may become higher (certification is sensitive to time lag).
My judgment is that higher education and large vocational colleges are more suitable for local deployment at this stage.
The future might come.“Costing system cloud services”This model reduces the cost of transport, but is highly network-dependent and suitable for areas where networks are well established.
No sense of authentication and zero trust. It's the direction, not the present.
“No sensory authentication”Hotspot orientation: Users get the device, automatically authenticate it, and do not need to enter a password. Experience is good, but security and management precision are reduced.
“Zero Trust”It's another direction: no more distinction.“Intranet”“Outline”Each visit is certified and authorized. Security is high, but deployment is highly complex.
Both directions are good, but most schools are not as well informed at this stage. My suggestion is to make the basic account code authentication +IPOE/PPOPE certification, and so on, to improve the level of information before considering non-sensor certification and zero trust.
Don't do it.“Advanced”And the best thing is to be advanced.
Data realization, not selling data, optimizing decision-making
The large amount of usage data accumulated by the system is in fact very valuable.“Selling data”(This involves privacy compliance) but is used to optimize decision-making on network operations.
For example, depending on trends in traffic use, it is decided when to expand; whether to restrict certain applications according to distribution; and the safety strategy is optimized based on anomalous patterns.
Future billing systems may include additional data analysis and visualization functions to help schools make data-driven operational decisions.
Summary and recommendations
Future evolution of the campus network billing system will follow several directions: IPv6 depth support, AI-aided transport dimensions, cloudization/mixing deployments, more sophisticated strategic control and enhanced data analysis capabilities.
When you choose, don't look at it.“What's the function now?”Look.“Can the future evolve?”. It is more cost-effective to select an open architecture, interface standards and a continuous research and development capability for the manufacturer than to choose a multifunctional but closed system.
Finally, it is recalled that one must use and manage a more sophisticated system.
These five articles describe the campus network billing system from a selection, technology, wiring, scenes, and five dimensions.
If there are specific problems, we welcome exchanges. Problems in the field of warfare are often much more complicated than writing.