Remote management protocols like TR-069, TR-369 and TR-181 play a vital role in the efficiency and stability of broadband services. If you work at a broadband internet provider, you've probably heard of these protocols.
But what are the main differences between them and how do they affect the operation of a provider? That's what we'll cover next.
What are TR-069, TR-369 and TR-181?
First, let's understand what these protocols are. O TR-069 (CPE WAN Management Protocol – CWMP), TR-369 (User Services Platform – USP) and TR-181 (Device Data Model for TR-069) are specifications developed by the Broadband Forum for remote management of CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) devices such as routers, modems and gateways residential.
The 3 main differences
1. Application and approach
The TR-069 was created with the purpose of remote device management and configuration. It allows broadband service providers to manage and troubleshoot customer devices remotely and in an automated manner. A Anlix's Flashbox Solution, uses communication via TR-069 so that the provider remotely manage and configure the CPEs on your network efficiently and standardized.
The TR-181, on the other hand, is a data model for the TR-069. It defines a standardized structure for the data that can be accessed and manipulated through the TR-069. TR-181 is not a separate protocol, but an extension of TR-069, providing more details about the devices and their functionalities. It is an evolution of the first released data model standard, TR-098.
The TR-369, known as USP (User Services Platform), is an evolution of the TR-069. It offers all the functionality of the TR-069, but goes further, allowing you to managing a wider range of devices and incorporating more recent technologies such as IoT (Internet of Things).
2. Compatibility and Scope
The TR-069 is designed to work with any type of CPE that provides information using the TR-098 or TR-181 data models. The TR-181 data model provides a more detailed description of these devices' data than the TR-098, allowing for more precise management.
On the other hand, the TR-369 it is more comprehensive and compatible with a wider range of devices. It is capable of managing not only traditional CPE devices, but also IoT devices, making it more adaptable to the growing network of connected devices. It only uses the TR-181 data model.
3. Flexibility and Future
The TR-069, although efficient in its functions, was created at a time when the number and diversity of connected devices was smaller. The TR-369, however, was developed considering the growing popularity and variety of IoT devices. It is more flexible and better equipped to handle future device management demands.
Both communication protocols work with the TR-181 data model, making TR-181 a standard for exchanging information and “retiring” the old TR-098 format, already announced by the Broadband Forum as obsolete.
How does this affect the operation?
Now, you might be wondering, how do these differences affect the day-to-day operation of a broadband service provider?
In terms of basic functionality, not much difference between TR-069 and TR-369. Both allow remote management, configuration and diagnostics of CPE devices. So when it comes to managing and resolving common issues, all are equally efficient.
However, the TR-369 can bring advantages in the future, with the increasing adoption of IoT devices. If your company plans to expand into areas involving IoT, the TR-369 can offer greater flexibility and manageability. In addition, the TR-369 seeks to solve problems present in the TR-069, such as NAT traversal transparently, using other information communication protocols, such as MQTT and XMPP.
In summary, while TR-069 and TR-369 have their differences, both are effective for remote management of CPE devices. The differences between them are more relevant in terms of compatibility and future-proofing rather than significantly impacting day-to-day operation. Therefore, the choice between them will depend more on the strategic direction and specific needs of your company.
As for the data model used, there is consensus that the TR-181 is better than the TR-098; even though most CPEs still support TR-098, the trend is for TR-181 to dominate in the coming years.