the state of the art in network management for the future internet john strassner chairman,...

The State of the Art in Network Management for the Future Internet

John StrassnerChairman, Autonomic Communications Forum

Director, Autonomic Research, TSSG

Professor, POSTECH

ManFI KeynoteJohn Strassner

Agenda

Introduction and MotivationSummary of Management Problems in the Current Internet Incremental, Evolutionary, and Revolutionary ApproachesState of the Art ReviewThe Real Problems of ManagementA Way Forward


The Digitization of Everything


The Explosion of Broadband


Smarter Devices


NGN Architecture is About Convergence

“Convergence: The Act of Converging and Especially moving toward union or uniformity…” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Seamless Communications requires convergence of multiple technical areas. Seamless Mobility networks are concerned with:

Service Convergence

Device Convergence

Network Convergence

Service Convergence

Device Convergence

NetworkConvergence


NGN Applications Need Convergence Too!

Seamless Experience requires convergence of multiple business areas. Seamless Mobility applications are concerned with:

Billing Convergence

Security Convergence

Interface Convergence

Management Convergence

Context Convergence

Security Convergence

Interface Convergence

ContextConvergence

BillingConvergence

Management Convergence


Seamless Mobility Vision…

Seamless Mobility 101 Set of solutions to give the user the experience of being connected

anywhere, anytime, to anything, with any service

“Seamless” emphasizes continuity of experience across multiple spatial

domains, devices, network protocols and access modes

“Mobility” is the next phase of the internet revolution that allows users to

communicate and manipulate information regardless of location

Easy, un-interrupted access to information, entertainment, communication, monitoring and control

Seamless mobility is a framework architecture that enables devices and networks to interoperate using compatible, reusable software


Seamless Mobility Architecture

Service Delivery Platform

Application &Content Servers

Cellular 3GMobile Broadband Wireless Access

Cable/DSL/Fiber

Core IP Network

Communication Gateway

Communication Gateway Communication

Gateway

Softswitch

Wireless Services Manager


Agenda



Internet Architectural Limitations (1)

Two fundamental problems exist in its design• Architectural limitations • Inability to relate business needs to network services offered

For this talk, we are interested in an even more fundamental limitation: lack of manageability


Internet Architectural Limitations (2) Is Too Simple Just Too Stupid?

• The core does not understand the content or purpose of the data that it is carrying, or what each traffic pattern signifies» It can easily accommodate the deployment of new applications» It cannot easily detect when something has gone wrong

• Lack of Service Interoperability»Approaches such as DiffServ define, but do not enforce, the definition of

traffic classification and conditioning, impeding interoperability» Interaction problems between the different network layers are still

unresolved, and the management of such services is still open

• Scalability»The dramatic increase in different types of local networks all point to the

need to support a variety of communication methods that allow interconnecting many different types of devices


Internet Architectural Limitations (3) Is Too Simple Stupid? Part 2…

• “Smart Edge, Dumb Core”»Advantage: the Internet can easily deploy new applications»Disadvantage: it cannot easily detect when something has gone wrong

• The Internet can run over essentially any network technology (due to its simple use of that technology)»No way to utilize special features for a particular application»Very difficult to take advantage of new business opportunities enabled by

various disruptive technologies and applications.

• The current Internet lacks mobility support»Current Internet naming system is based on the host address, which is

inefficient for mobile and multi-homed devices»Current solutions, such as HIP, do not take into account context-aware

applications, where message communication depends on context.



Architectural limitations include Trust (or lack thereof)

• Trusting => prone to attack and manipulation by malicious users

• E2E design principle assumes that end-points can communicate freely, making anonymity and privacy very difficult to achieve

• Security is currently isolated in selected protocols, not the system

• Without monitoring capability, external applications must be used to diagnose problems as well as to identify new attacks

• Exacerbated by the use of multiple administrative domains, each enforcing its own set of regulations and constraints

• Existing patches, such as firewalls, violate the original goals of the Internet design, and move it from an open network to a closed or partially closed network.



Inability to relate business needs to network services

• Example: given an SNMP alarm, how can one define the set of SLAs for each customer that is adversely affected?

• Current network management data does not contain business or system information»This means that network management applications must instead infer

system and service problems

»How can this overcome the heterogeneous programming languages and models with different semantics used?

»Given the above, how can one integrate disparate data to determine the current state and context?

• It is becoming increasingly difficult for system integrators to gather the information that they need


Internet Management Deficiencies

Must separate data, control, and management layers• Any additional layers must be separated as well

Abstraction• Network device configuration data is complex!• Need to reduce the complexity seen by the human (or machine)

manager without limiting control

Cross-domain management• Administrative policy differences• Social difficulties and privacy concerns• Cooperation on quid pro quo basis


Agenda



Three Approaches Incremental approach

• Current status quo, characterized by the plethora of point solutions that violate the architectural principles of the current Internet

• Many different problems, especially conflict between point solutions Revolutionary (“clean slate”) approach

• Eliminates existing commitments, restraints, and assumptions, and starts with a new set of ideas

• Advocates a radical redesign of the current Internet architecture Evolutionary approach – a compromise

• Enables new ideas to evolve while simultaneously emphasizing backwards compatibility with the existing Internet

• Current and future networks and networked applications have vastly different requirements; this implies that a single architecture cannot simultaneously meet these different needs


Definitions

Incremental• System is moved from one state to another with small,

incremental patches; new ideas that are not compatible with the original design are not allowed

Evolutionary• Same as above, except that new ideas that are not

compatible with the original design are allowed.

Revolutionary• System is redesigned from scratch to offer improved

abstractions and/or performance, while providing similar functionality based on new core principles.


Agenda



Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI)An experimental infrastructure to validate and demonstrate

networking research launched in August 2005GENI addresses the deficiencies in existing tools and

small-scale experimentation• In principle, this will enable the viability of Future Internet designs to

be validated, especially under realistic future conditions• Concentrates on overarching clean-slate architectural proposals as

well as advances in the basic building blocks of the Future Internet• The GENI research facility is a global experimental facility that

fosters the exploration and evaluation of new networking architectures (at scale) under realistic conditions


Future Internet Design (FIND)

FIND is a major long-term initiative of the NSF NeTS research program started in 2006

FIND is aimed at designing all aspects of the Future Internet in a timeframe roughly 15 years in the future

FIND seeks to design and build an end-to-end network architecture incorporating emerging technologies using a clean-slate approach


Situated Autonomic Computing Situated Communications

• Reacting locally to context changes• Considering strategic needs (social or economic, not only technological)

Autonomic Communications• network elements autonomously interrelated and controlled, learning desired

behavior Purpose and Goals

• Identify new “situated” and “autonomic” communication/networking paradigms in a longish (10-20 years) time frame

• Combine technological and socio-economic research and instil into networks• Communication/networking should become task- and knowledge-driven• To define a self-organising communication network that can be situated in

multiple and dynamic contexts• To define hardware and software that can evolve and create maximal

synergy with other non-technological entities that constitute their context


Situated Autonomic Computing (FP6) ANA

• Novel network architecture (beyond IP) enabling flexible and autonomic formation of network nodes according to working, economic and social needs; focused on adaptation and reorganization of the network

BIONETS• Biologically-inspired approach (from nature and society) to localized

autonomic communication services without central control, allowing high-level services to evolve spontaneously

CASCADAS• Defining a new generation of highly distributed, pervasive, situation-aware,

semantically self-organising communication-intensive services• Focus on self-similarity, autonomic component-ware

HAGGLE• Cross-layer network architecture exploiting intermittent connectivity• Supporting opportunistic networking paradigm (delivery of messages based

on store and forward exploiting situated information)


4WARD Overview

Research on technical aspects of the Future Internet and its relations to non-technical aspects like regulation and business modeling

Common elements:• Network virtualization, service provisioning resources, new forms of

connectivity

Novel elements:• Network of information - focusing on information objects• Information-centric, not device-centric, communication• Seeks to integrate non-technical and technical work areas: ‘business

evolution’, ‘socio-economic environment’ and ‘regulation’.• Autonomic self-organizing management plane


4WARD Network of Information

Information object model• including object meta-data, multiple representations at the bit-level,

versioning, support for live streaming and support for physical objects Information object integrity

• Object identification and verification of authenticity independent of its location Object search

• Google for objects Object lookup/resolution

• Mechanisms for finding the “best” copy of the object, given a name or identifier for the object, private scope as well as public/global scope

Object distribution• Mechanisms for information object routing and caching, including replication

and synchronisation, and optimisation of delivery Object storage

• Management of storage for objects


Autonomic Internet Overview (FP7) Creates a management resource overlay with autonomic

characteristics for the purposes of easy, fast and guaranteed service delivery.• Develop open software infrastructure and tools to support composition and

execution of fast and guaranteed services• Based on using virtual network resources and Policy-Based Management to

describe and control services• Uses Ontologies, Information, and Data models to facilitate the Internet

service deployment in terms of programmable networks facilities supporting the Future Internet

• Develop a set of service-centric network APIs to abstract the heterogeneity of multiple types of access and core networks

Self-Management through• Using and extending FOCALE architecture• Building analogous knowledge plane and control loops• New network APIs designed to take advantage of model and virtual

device/service abstractions


Mapping

…

Mapping

…

OrchestrationPlane

VirtualisationPlane

Semantic Bus

Federation Services

…User Interface Services

Business Goals

Customer Needs

Models andOntologies

DistributedOrchestrationComponent

Autonomic Management System

Management Plane

Knowledge Plane

Developer Interface

Operator InterfaceService

LifecycleManagement

Lifecycle Management Services

Intra-System View

Oth

ers

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

System View

Oth

ers

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

Oth

ers

Oth

ers

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

System View

Oth

ers

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

Oth

ers

Oth

ers

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Dis

trib

uti

on

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Fed

erat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

Neg

oti

atio

nN

ego

tiat

ion

vCPI vCPI vCPI

vSPI

vCPI vCPI

Autonomic Management System

Management Plane

Knowledge Plane

Physical Resource

Component

Inter-System ViewAll Orchestration Modules

End-User Virtualised Services

End-User Composite Virtualised Services


Agenda



Current Management Limitations

Network infrastructure is developed and deployed first• Management and security are added separately later• Thus, functions which need management cannot be designed or

tested until management is added• No opportunity to simulate or test before deployment

Lack of vendor- and technology-neutral models and APIs mean that even a local management approach cannot be designed beforehand

Inability to incorporate new or changed information Inability to customize services offered according to

business and environmental conditions/constraints


Key Management RequirementsSecurity and trustworthiness in a distributed environment

• by embedding security and trust rules in network

Management functionality at modeling and design phases• Must support different levels of management compliance

»Default/essential vs. nice-to-have/extended vs. /optional• Monitoring and accounting functions must be embedded capabilities

through a uniformly accessible • Ability to support evolutionary management needs in response to

new device functionality, customer service requirements, etc.• Separation of management, control, and data traffic

Pre-defined management functions help business• Reduced integration costs• Shorter development and testing life cycles


Additional Management RequirementsSupport for four key types of functionality

• Operations – Keep the network running smoothly, monitor for alarms• Administration – Keep track of network assets, who uses what, etc.• Maintenance – Repairs, upgrades, planning• Provisioning – Network device and service configuration

Support for additional functionality• Help identify, diagnose, fix problems (reactive management)

»Event and alarm correlation/filtering (traditional view)»Use of abstraction to reason about root cause (emerging view)

• Avoid problems in the future (proactive management)»Observe and extrapolate performance trends»Support problem prediction

• Move beyond traditional manager-agent architectures to support flexibility better suited to application needs


Nice to Have Management RequirementsManagement interfaces must be flexible

• Dedicated protocol has advantages and disadvantages• Freedom to use APIs, logic, or other approaches that are better

suited to the needs of the application

Management interfaces should be consistent• Do we really need different protocols for configuration vs. accounting

vs. security vs. …?• Is there really a need for different management interfaces that

express different views of the same data?Management data should be consistent

• Exchange and reuse of common data is mandatory


Agenda



FIXEDKnowledge Base

Manages

Typical Current Management Approach

Management System

Pre-Defined LogicFunctionality

Receives vendor-specific commandsSends vendor-specific data


ProductionNetwork

DedicatedManagementNetwork

ProductionNetwork

Shared management and data traffic

Management trafficProduction traffic

Legend:

Typical Management NetworksSeparate management and data traffic


Shared Management Typically UsedAdvantages of Shared Management

• Significant savings in cost and overhead• Often not practical to build separate communication• More communication lines may lead to additional security risks• Often simpler to plan one network

Disadvantages of Shared Management• Reliability decreased since management traffic may be blocked• Performance impacted since management traffic can interfere with

mission-critical data traffic

»Of course, this assumes that management is not mission-critical

• Security impacted, since users and administrators are performing different functions over the same network infrastructure


Next Generation Management Interfaces Network nodes will vary in functionality, programmability, persistence,

and dependability Services will rapidly increase and diversify, so management data model

must be extensible• Specify management objects from different viewpoints (e.g., business vs.

technical)• Software must be responsible for translating high-level goals into appropriate

strategies for lower level implementation Separation of data, control, and management functions Inclusion of “inferencing” functions to enable self-awareness and

reasoning to be performed• Management depends not on just observed and measured facts, but also

inferred results• Number of data sources and their inherent diversity in defining management

and operational data make their integration a difficult problem to solve


IBM MAPE Approach

Autonomic Element Autonomic Element Autonomic Element


CASCADAS ACE


FOCALE ACE

Autonomic Computing Element

Autonomic ManagerContext-Aware

Policy ServerLearning and

rEasoning

Observe Compare Act

Model-Based Translation

DistributedComponents

DistributedComponents

Foundation:Finite State

Machine

Models and Ontologies

ECB


FOCALE Control Loops

Observe Compare

Decide

Context

Normalize

Act

Policy Rules Inner Loop

Outer Loop

Adaptation


Semantics in FOCALE

Raw Eventsand/or Data

Information Objects

Knowledge Concepts

Managed Resource(s)

Information ModelsInformation

ModelsInformation Models

OntologiesOntologies

Ontologies

Information Model Mapping Logic

Ontology Model Mapping Logic

Harmonization Logic

XML

XML

XML

Object Construction and Semantic

Augmentation Logic

Autonomic Processing Engine

Semantic XML Objects

XMLXML

Se

ma

ntic

Bu

s


The Inference Plane

Data Plane

Control Plane B

Inference Plane

Autonomic ManagerAutonomic Manager

Policy Server

Observe

Learn

Actions

DEN-ngModels and Ontologies

Foundation:Finite StateMachines

Compare

Policy ServerPolicy ServerPolicy Server

ObserveObserveObserve

LearnLearnLearn

ActionsActionsActions







CompareCompareCompare

Control Plane A

Network Management Plane Network

Network Network A


FOCALE Service-Aware Domain

Physical Device (part of Data Plane)

Administrative Domain

FOCALE

Virtual ServiceVirtual ServiceVirtual Service

Virtual Device (part of Data Plane)Virtual Device (part of Data Plane)Virtual Device (part of Data Plane)

Fusion Logic

Mgmt & Ctrl

OrchestrationOrchestration


ComparisonAspect IBM CASCADAS FOCALE

Static or Adaptive Control Static Adaptive Adaptive Multiple Control Loops Single Single Multiple

Policy Driven Control Loop Yes No Yes Policy Languages One None Multiple

Policy Languages for Different Constituencies

No No Yes

Dynamic Knowledge Base No Yes Yes Data Scalability Limited by

sensors Scalable Scalable

Accommodates Heterogeneous Data

Limited by Common Base

Event

No mechanism to deal with this

Yes through model-based translation

Data Complexity Limited to data that can be

instrumented

Specific plugins can be added for new data

Uses patterns, models, and ontologies to

parse data Data Semantics Encoded No Yes Yes

ACE Complexity High Low Low ACE Components

Distributed No Yes Yes

Uses Ontologies No Could in Future Yes Semantic Matching No Yes Yes

Self-Organizing No Yes Yes Uses Self-Model No Yes Yes

Publishes Self-Model? No Yes No State-Driven No Yes Yes

Adaptable State Machine No Yes Yes Model-Based Supervision No Yes Yes

Autonomic Behavior Loosely or Tightly Coupled

Tightly Coupled

Both Both

Context-Aware No Yes Yes Supports Emergent

Functionality No Yes Yes

Communication Mechanism Pre-Defined Interfaces

Messages and pre-defined interfaces

ECB messaging and pre-defined

interfaces


PolicyService

Event Service

SecurityService

Discovery Service

Context Service

AnalysisService

…

Autonomic Management Environment

PolicyServicePolicy

Service

Event Service

SecurityServiceSecurityService

Discovery Service

Discovery Service

Context ServiceContext Service

AnalysisServiceAnalysisService

…

Autonomic Management Domain

Managed ResourceManaged Resource

Model-Based Translation LayerModel-Based Translation Layer

Autonomic Manager


Context-AwarePolicy Server




Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason











Autonomic Manager






Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason









PolicyServicePolicy

Service

Event Service

SecurityServiceSecurityService

Discovery Service

Discovery Service

Context ServiceContext Service

AnalysisServiceAnalysisService

…

Autonomic Management Domain



Autonomic Manager






Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason











Autonomic Manager






Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason

Learn andrEason










Future Research

We are designing a new network architecture from an information-centric approach• Rather than from a device-centric approach

The information is the focus• Not where we get it

Brings several benefits• Better large-scale distribution efficiency• Better performance an reliability (also for non-dissemination

applications)• Supports dynamic adaptation and orchestration• Supports ability to reason about data

Ongoing work on information modelling, object naming and the architectural framework

Questions?

Questions?

“Create like a god. Command like a king. Work like a slave”- Constantin Brancusi

the state of the art in network management for the future internet john strassner chairman,...

Documents

future internet efforts

management efforts

network management

current internetincremental

future internets

technical problem

cellular networks

ip networks