When many clients consult WiFi, the first sentence is:"We already have a network behavior management, firewalls, AC controllers. Do we need another NATSHEL_AUTH_BILLING system?"The question is very real and the most easy to sell."We can blend."Take it. At the program stage, three devices are in charge of what they are, who keeps them for change, who goes by, who goes through, who doesn't pull a line, who goes on the line and fights.
Let us begin with the conclusion:The three types of equipment are not the same problem.The firewall is..."Which bags can enter, which packages can come out."It looks at the five-pieces and known threat characteristics; it's Internet behavior management."When did someone use anything, on what website?"It's at the core of identification and auditing; AC controllers are in charge of"How's the wireless AP thin?"It's wireless. WiFi's network billing system is."Who's using it, how long, how much traffic, how much money to charge, who's being paid off.". The four things overlap in the technology store, but are separated on operational responsibility.
Why a separate billing system? The most common scenario: schools have a good Internet behavior management device that can audit which websites students get on and see every student's flow. It doesn't solve the problem."How much traffic this student has left in the monthly package, he owes me for breaking up the net, how does he get back online when he's loaded?"This is a set of business issues."The flow has occurred."And what the billing system is gonna do is..."I'm gonna check the traffic before it happens, book it after it happens, and I'm gonna have no money to trigger.". This is a closed loop, not an audit report to replace.
The reverse is the same.The billing system is not a security device.V7 NATHHELL_AUTH_BILLING systems with Portal, RADIUS, strategy and DPI recognition private proxy but it is positioned as a validation and billing platform, not an intrusion defense to replace the next generation of firewalls, or as a full-flow audit to substitute for professional access management. Role-5 technical answer rules repeatedly emphasize that when customers have Internet behavior management, firewalls, ACs, switchboards, they cannot write."Alternative""Take over all"This is a function of the ability to complete existing equipment.
How do you work with the deployment?Sidewalk authentication with a string of connectionsThe system is used as a Portal server and RADIAS authentication source, which is located on the sidewalk without any strings attached to mainstream paths so that even if the certification system itself restarts, it will not disrupt the network. The real enforcement of these actions is a gateway or bras in export locations. After user certification has been adopted, the system issues strategies (bandwidth ceilings, basket status, allowed duration) to the gateway; the gateway is implemented by strategy, with data back-to-costing being recorded.
There is a common error:"Since there's an Internet behavioral management, why don't you let it go along with Natshell?"The answer is business models and data shut-downs. The logic of the product of an Internet behavior management company is to sell equipment, which is charged hardware by bandwidth or user numbers, without doing your functions as a set, charging, refunding, operating statements, and agent splits. These are exactly what WiFi operators need every day.——It can see the carding data, but it cannot do the payroll rules, approvals and statements.
The relationship between AC controllers and billing systems is much easier. V7 supports the AC and Bras, which are major players like China, Central H3C, sharp, ARUBA, Ruckus, and takes standard RADIFUS and Portal protocols. AC does not need to change; it continues with AP; the billing system serves as an extra Portal server and authentication source, telling AAC that"This user-certified has passed. How wide is it?". The advantage of this docking is that the current network does not have to be re-rewinded, AC investments are not wasted and billing capacity is hanging up. But before you do, confirm whether the AC-supported Portal version of the protocol, RADIUS properties can be correctly mapped——This knowledge base clearly states the boundary: cross-system interface feasibility requires on-site confirmation of interfaces, fields, connecting conditions and cannot be implied"If you support the standard agreement, it'll work."。
Three of the most common points of conflict in actual projects.First, both devices wanted to re-direct Portal, and the user was hit twice on WiFi, first on a real name page for online behavior management and second on a set page for billing systems. This is where we have to fix who will do the redirection entrance at the programme stage, not both of them. Second, both devices record logs, and finally leave no idea which side to check when they are cut off. Third, the bandwidth strategy is matched on both sides, and the result-based billing system says 10M to the user, behavior management is limited to 2M, and users complain about insufficient bandwidth. This situation requires that the only implementation point be specified at the time of the strategy design, usually an export gateway or a bras system, which is responsible for telling it only."How much should I give?", do not repeat the match.
There is a boundary to be drawn:The depth of compliance audit and the basic log are not the same thing.. The billing system has certified records, Internet access hours, traffic records and is able to meet public security retention requirements by accessing third-party audit platforms; but if the client is required to perform a full flow seven-level application content audit, and person-to-person back to specific visits, that is independent NATSHEL_LOG_AUDIT. Units with a mature auditing platform already have the billing system put the certification record over, so do not let the billing system carry the pressure of full-volume storage queries.
After all, WiFi's network billing system is not intended to replace anyone on the current web."Authentication—The package.—Fees—Disconnected"The firewalls continue to be door-stopped, conduct management audits continued, AC continues to handle wireless, and the billing system is supposed to cover the entire layer of who is using, how much money and what to do with the fees. The four devices are in place, so that the network does not duplicate construction and unclear responsibility. The programme design phase clearly spells out the responsibilities for each device, which is far better than putting each other on line.