There are many schools and lots of them.——The complexity of deployments increases exponentially if the school network billing system is to be managed uniformly in multiple campuses. It is not simply a copy of one system to each campus, but rather a balance between integrated management, differential management, and localized transport dimensions. In multi-school settings, account administration, billing strategies, export bandwidth, and user types may vary, with a fully unified strategy for managing all campuses, often scalding well.
Harmonization or hierarchy of management requires a first adjustment.
The school network billing system is based on multi-school settings, and it should be clear whether to manage them in a uniform or graded manner. The unified management is the central node of all campuses, accounts and bills are concentrated in the main campus, with subdistricts being connected to the network only, without an independent back office. The level management is independent, with a backstage for each campus, which can configure its own strategy while synchronizing data with the centre node. Both models have advantages and disadvantages: integrated management concentration, consistency of data, but faulty zoning flexibility, and web delay sensitivity; high level management flexibility, localization of transport dimensions, but complex data synchronization and compliance audits are difficult. Schools are selected according to their own circumstances and the hybrid model (centralized + school district differences) is also a practical programme.
Impact of network link quality on system architecture
The central node of the school network billing system is located in the main campus, where users in the sub-schools follow the main campus chain every time they certify, and when peak period links congestion slows down certification. It would be better to deploy local accreditation agents in the sub-campus, where local users first complete their certification locally, and then validate data synchronize to the centre node."Local authentication + center sync"The structure balances the speed of authentication and data consistency, but it is more complex to deploy systems.
The account system is to support the cross-school cruise.
In multi-school settings, students are not limited to a single campus.——The system of accounts for the school network billing system must support cross-school trips.——An account can be entered in all campuses, flow lines, billing records, and contribution information are common throughout the campus. This requires that account numbers be synchronized in real time in multi-school settings, with a system that recognizes the current campus where users are currently located and applies their corresponding policies."This school can use. That campus can't use it."Or..."Retract charges for traffic"The problem.
Differential management of export bandwidth
The bandwidth of the multi-schools varies widely. There may be 10G exports from the main campus, only 1G from the new campus, and a separate rental of the commercial line for the off-site campus. The bandwidth strategy of the school network system cannot be applied in one size or another, but is organized according to the campus.——The campus can appropriately increase the unit price of traffic to reflect real costs.
Localised border demarcation of carriers
Each campus needs basic support.——The system is managed on the back of a school network charge system that supports separate accounts for the campus, and the office administrator only manages the data for the campus and does not see any privacy information about other campuses. This segregation of rights is a compliance requirement and a necessary design to avoid overstepping authority.
Data compliance and audit across campuses
Multi-school data storage may involve cross-geographic compliance issues——For example, in different provinces, data storage is required to meet local regulatory requirements. The location of the data centre for the school network billing system is based on compliance boundaries and sensitive data cannot be transmitted over geographical areas at will.
A strategy for incremental deployment of multi-school areas
It is advisable not to open multi-school areas of the school network fee system at one time. It is recommended that batches be advanced: first, run on a campus and verify the feasibility of the entire architecture in a real environment; second, expand to 2-3 campuses, test cross-campus data synchronization and roaming functions; third, then extend to all campuses. Each batch has a 1-2 month stabilization period to gather feedback and adjust its structure. Progressive deployment allows problems to be exposed on a small scale, avoiding large-scale concentrations.——It is easy to go back to the first, but it is simple to move into schools and complex.