Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


Network Working Group J. Schoenwaelder Request for Comments: 3535 International University Bremen Category: Informational May 2003

        Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


 This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet
 Architecture Board (IAB) on Network Management.  The workshop was
 hosted by CNRI in Reston, VA, USA on June 4 thru June 6, 2002.  The
 goal of the workshop was to continue the important dialog started
 between network operators and protocol developers, and to guide the
 IETFs focus on future work regarding network management.  This report
 summarizes the discussions and lists the conclusions and
 recommendations to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 1] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2. Network Management Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
      2.1 SNMP / SMI / MIBs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
      2.2 COPS-PR / SPPI / PIBs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
      2.3 CIM / MOF / UML / PCIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
      2.4 CLI / TELNET / SSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
      2.5 HTTP / HTML  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
      2.6 XML  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
 3. Operator Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 4. SNMP Framework Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
 5. Consolidated Observations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 6. Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
 7. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 8. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 Appendix - Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
 Full Copyright Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Introduction

 The IETF has started several activities in the operations and
 management area to develop technologies and standards that aim to
 help network operators manage their networks.  The main network
 management technologies currently being developed within the IETF
 o  The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3410] was
    created in the late 1980s.  The initial version (SNMPv1) is widely
    deployed, while the latest version (SNMPv3), which addresses
    security requirements, is just beginning to gain significant
 o  The Common Information Model (CIM) [CIM], developed by the
    Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), has been extended in
    cooperation with the DMTF to describe high-level policies as rule
    sets (PCIM) [RFC3060].  Mappings of the CIM policy extensions to
    LDAP schemas have been defined and work continues to define
    specific schema extension for QoS and security policies.
 o  The Common Open Policy Service (COPS) [RFC2748] protocol has been
    extended to provision configuration information on devices (COPS-
    PR) [RFC3084].  Work is underway to define data definitions for
    specific services such as Differentiated Services (DiffServ).

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 2] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 During 2001, several meetings have been organized at various events
 (NANOG-22 May 2001, RIPE-40 October 2001, LISA-XV December 2001,
 IETF-52 December 2001) to start a direct dialog between network
 operators and protocol developers.  During these meetings, several
 operators have expressed their opinion that the developments in the
 IETF do not really address their requirements, especially for
 configuration management.  This naturally leads to the question of
 whether the IETF should refocus resources, and which strategic future
 activities in the operations and management area should be started.
 The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), on June 4 thru June 6, 2002,
 held an invitational workshop on network management.  The goal of the
 workshop was to continue the important dialog started between network
 operators and protocol developers, and to guide the IETFs focus on
 future work regarding network management.
 The workshop started with two breakout session to (a) identify a list
 of technologies relevant for network management together with their
 strengths and weaknesses, and to (b) identify the most important
 operator needs.  The results of these discussions are documented in
 Section 2 and Section 3.  During the following discussions, many more
 specific characteristics of the current SNMP framework were
 identified.  These discussions are documented in Section 4.  Section
 5 defines a combined feature list that was developed during the
 discussions following the breakout sessions.  Section 6 gives
 concrete recommendations to the IETF.
 The following text makes no explicit distinction between different
 versions of SNMP.  For the majority of the SNMP related statements,
 the protocol version is irrelevant.  Nevertheless, some statements
 are more applicable to SNMPv1/SNMPv2c environments, while other
 statements (especially those concerned with security) are more
 applicable to SNMPv3 environments.

2. Network Management Technologies

 During the breakout sessions, the protocol developers assembled a
 list of the various network management technologies that are
 available or under active development.  For each technology, a list
 of strong (+) and weak (-) points were identified.  There are also
 some characteristics which appear to be neutral (o).
 The list does not attempt to be complete.  Focus was given to IETF
 specific technologies (SNMP, COPS-PR, PCIM) and widely used
 proprietary technologies (CLI, HTTP/HTML, XML).  The existence of
 other generic management technologies (such as TL1, CORBA, CMIP/GDMO,

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 3] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 TMN) or specific management technologies for specific problem domains
 (such as RADIUS, DHCP, BGP, OSPF) were acknowledged, but were not the
 focus of discussion.

2.1 SNMP / SMI / MIBs

 The SNMP management technology was created in the late 1980s and has
 since been widely implemented and deployed in the Internet.  There is
 lots of implementational and operational experience, and the
 characteristics of the technology are thus well understood.
 +  SNMP works reasonably well for device monitoring.  The stateless
    nature of SNMP is useful for statistical and status polling.
 +  SNMP is widely deployed for basic monitoring.  Some core MIB
    modules, such as the IF-MIB [RFC2863], are implemented on most
    networking devices.
 +  There are many well defined proprietary MIB modules developed by
    network device vendors to support their management products.
 +  SNMP is an important data source for systems that do event
    correlation, alarm detection, and root cause analysis.
 o  SNMP requires applications to be useful.  SNMP was, from its early
    days, designed as a programmatic interface between management
    applications and devices.  As such, using SNMP without management
    applications or smart tools appears to be more complicated.
 o  Standardized MIB modules often lack writable MIB objects which can
    be used for configuration, and this leads to a situation where the
    interesting writable objects exist in proprietary MIB modules.
  1. There are scaling problems with regard to the number of objects in

a device. While SNMP provides reasonable performance for the

    retrieval of a small amount of data from many devices, it becomes
    rather slow when retrieving large amounts of data (such as routing
    tables) from a few devices.
  1. There is too little deployment of writable MIB modules. While

there are some notable exceptions in areas, such as cable modems

    where writable MIB modules are essential, it appears that router
    equipment is usually not fully configurable via SNMP.
  1. The SNMP transactional model and the protocol constraints make it

more complex to implement MIBs, as compared to the implementation

    of commands of a command line interface interpreter.  A logical
    operation on a MIB can turn into a sequence of SNMP interactions

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 4] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

    where the implementation has to maintain state until the operation
    is complete, or until a failure has been determined.  In case of a
    failure, a robust implementation must be smart enough to roll the
    device back into a consistent state.
  1. SNMP does not support easy retrieval and playback of

configurations. One part of the problem is that it is not easy to

    identify configuration objects.  Another part of the problem is
    that the naming system is very specific and physical device
    reconfigurations can thus break the capability to play back a
    previous configuration.
  1. There is often a semantic mismatch between the task-oriented view

of the world usually preferred by operators and the data-centric

    view of the world provided by SNMP.  Mapping from a task-oriented
    view to the data-centric view often requires some non-trivial code
    on the management application side.
  1. Several standardized MIB modules lack a description of high-level

procedures. It is often not obvious from reading the MIB modules

    how certain high-level tasks are accomplished, which leads to
    several different ways to achieve the same goal, which increases
    costs and hinders interoperability.
 A more detailed discussion about the SNMP management technology can
 be found in Section 4.


 The COPS protocol [RFC2748] was defined in the late 1990s to support
 policy control over QoS signaling protocols.  The COPS-PR extension
 allows provision policy information on devises.
 +  COPS-PR allows high-level transactions for single devices,
    including deleting one configuration and replacing it with
 +  COPS-PRs non-overlapping instance namespace normally ensures that
    no other manager can corrupt a specific configuration.  All
    transactions for a given instance namespace are required to be
    executed in-order.
 +  Both manager and device states are completely synchronized with
    one another at all times.  If there is a failure in communication,
    the state is resynchronized when the network is operating properly
    again and the device's network configuration is valid.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 5] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 +  The atomicity of transactions is well-defined.  If there is any
    failure in a transaction, that specific failure is reported to the
    manager, and the local configuration is supposed to be
    automatically rolled-back to the state of the last "good"
 +  Capability reporting is part of the framework PIB which must be
    supported by COPS-PR implementations.  This allows management
    applications to adapt to the capabilities present on a device.
 +  The focus of COPS-PR is configuration, and the protocol has been
    optimized for this purpose (by using for example TCP as a
    transport mechanism).
 o  Only a single manager is allowed to have control, at any point in
    time, for a given subject category on a device.  (The subject
    category maps to a COPS Client-Type.)  This single manager
    assumption simplifies the protocol as it makes it easier to
    maintain shared state.
 o  Similar to SNMP, COPS-PR requires applications to be useful since
    it is also designed as a programmatic interface between management
    applications and devices.
  1. As of the time of the meeting, there are no standardized PIB


  1. Compared to SNMP, there is not yet enough experience to understand

the strong and weak aspects of the protocol in operational

  1. COPS-PR does not support easy retrieval and playback of

configurations. The reasons are similar as for SNMP.

  1. The COPS-PR view of the world is data-centric, similar to SNMP's

view of the world. A mapping from the data-centric view to a

    task-oriented view and vice versa, has similar complexities as
    with SNMP.

2.3 CIM / MOF / UML / PCIM

 The development of the Common Information Model (CIM) [CIM] started
 in the DMTF in the mid 1990s.  The development follows a top-down
 approach where core classes are defined first and later extended to
 model specific services.  The DMTF and the IETF jointly developed
 policy extensions of the CIM, known as PCIM [RFC3060].

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 6] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 +  The CIM technology generally follows principles of object-
    orientation with full support of methods on data objects, which is
    not available in SNMP or COPS-PR.
 +  The MOF format allows representation of instances in a common
    format.  No such common format exists for SNMP or COPS-PR.  It is
    of course possible to store instances in the form of BER encoded
    ASN.1 sequences, but this is generally not suitable for human
 +  There is support for a query facility which allows the locating of
    CIM objects.  However, the query language itself is not yet
    specified as part of the CIM standards.  Implementations currently
    use proprietary query languages, such as the Windows Management
    Instrumentation Query Language (WQL).
 +  The information modeling work in CIM is done by using Unified
    Modeling Language (UML) as a graphical notation.  This attracts
    people with a computer science background who have learned to use
    UML as part of their education.
 o  The main practical use of CIM schemas today seems to be the
    definition of data structures used internally by management
  1. The CIM schemas have rather complex interrelationships that must

be understood before one can reasonably extend the set of existing

  1. Interoperability between CIM implementations seems to be

problematic compared to the number of interoperable SNMP

    implementations available today.
  1. So far, CIM schemas have seen limited implementation and usage as

an interface between management systems and network devices.


 Most devices have a builtin command line interface (CLI) for
 configuration and troubleshooting purposes.  Network access to the
 CLI has traditionally been through the TELNET protocol, while the SSH
 protocol is gaining momentum to address security issues associated
 with TELNET.  In the following, only CLIs that actually parse and
 execute commands are considered.  (Menu-oriented interfaces are
 difficult for automation and thus not relevant here.)
 +  Command line interfaces are generally task-oriented, which make
    them easier to use for human operators.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 7] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 +  A saved sequence of textual commands can easily be replayed.
    Simple substitutions can be made with arbitrary text processing
 +  It is usually necessary to learn at least parts of the command
    line interface of new devices in order to create the initial
    configuration.  Once people have learned (parts of) the command
    line interface, it is natural for them to use the same interface
    and abstractions for automating configuration changes.
 +  A command line interface does not require any special purpose
    applications (telnet and ssh are readily available on most systems
 +  Most command line interfaces provide context sensitive help that
    reduces the learning curve.
  1. Some command line interfaces lack a common data model. It is very

well possible that the same command on different devices, even

    from the same vendor, behaves differently.
  1. The command line interface is primarily targeted to humans which

can adapt to minor syntax and format changes easily. Using

    command line interfaces as a programmatic interface is troublesome
    because of parsing complexities.
  1. Command line interfaces often lack proper version control for the

syntax and the semantics. It is therefore time consuming and

    error prone to maintain programs or scripts that interface with
    different versions of a command line interface.
  1. Since command line interfaces are proprietary, they can not be

used efficiently to automate processes in an environment with a

    heterogenous set of devices.
  1. The access control facilities, if present at all, are often ad-hoc

and sometimes insufficient.


 Many devices have an embedded web server which can be used to
 configure the device and to obtain status information.  The commonly
 used protocol is HTTP, and information is rendered in HTML.  Some
 devices also expect that clients have facilities such as Java or Java
 +  Embedded web servers for configuration are end-user friendly and
    solution oriented.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 8] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 +  Embedded web servers are suitable for configuring consumer devices
    by inexperienced users.
 +  Web server configuration is widely deployed, especially in boxes
    targeted to the consumer market.
 +  There is no need for specialized applications to use embedded web
    servers since web browsers are commonly available today.
  1. Embedded web servers are management application hostile. Parsing

HTML pages to extract useful information is extremely painful.

  1. Replay of configuration is often problematic, either because the

web pages rely on some active content or because different

    versions of the same device use different ways to interact with
    the user.
  1. The access control facilities, if present at all, are often ad-hoc

and sometimes insufficient.

2.6 XML

 In the late 1990's, some vendors started to use the Extensible Markup
 Language (XML) [XML] for describing device configurations and for
 protocols that can be used to retrieve and manipulate XML formatted
 +  XML is a machine readable format which is easy to process and
    there are many good off the shelf tools available.
 +  XML allows the description of structured data of almost arbitrary
 +  The basic syntax rules behind XML are relatively easy to learn.
 +  XML provides a document-oriented view of configuration data
    (similar to many proprietary configuration file formats).
 +  XML has a robust schema language XSD [XSD] for which many good off
    the shelf tools exist.
 o  XML alone is just syntax.  XML schemas must be carefully designed
    to make XML truly useful as a data exchange format.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 9] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

  1. XML is rather verbose. This either increases the bandwidth

required to move management information around (which is an issue

    in e.g., wireless or asymmetric cable networks) or it requires
    that the systems involved have the processing power to do on the
    fly compression/decompression.
  1. There is a lack of commonly accepted standardized management

specific XML schemas.

3. Operator Requirements

 During the breakout session, the operators were asked to identify
 needs that have not been sufficiently addressed.  The results
 produced during the breakout session were later discussed and
 resulted in the following list of operator requirements.
 1.  Ease of use is a key requirement for any network management
     technology from the operators point of view.
 2.  It is necessary to make a clear distinction between configuration
     data, data that describes operational state and statistics.  Some
     devices make it very hard to determine which parameters were
     administratively configured and which were obtained via other
     mechanisms such as routing protocols.
 3.  It is required to be able to fetch separately configuration data,
     operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be
     able to compare these between devices.
 4.  It is necessary to enable operators to concentrate on the
     configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual
 5.  Support for configuration transactions across a number of devices
     would significantly simplify network configuration management.
 6.  Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible
     to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with
     minimal state changes and effects on network and systems.  It is
     important to minimize the impact caused by configuration changes.
 7.  A mechanism to dump and restore configurations is a primitive
     operation needed by operators.  Standards for pulling and pushing
     configurations from/to devices are desirable.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 10] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 8.  It must be easy to do consistency checks of configurations over
     time and between the ends of a link in order to determine the
     changes between two configurations and whether those
     configurations are consistent.
 9.  Network wide configurations are typically stored in central
     master databases and transformed into formats that can be pushed
     to devices, either by generating sequences of CLI commands or
     complete configuration files that are pushed to devices.  There
     is no common database schema for network configuration, although
     the models used by various operators are probably very similar.
     It is desirable to extract, document, and standardize the common
     parts of these network wide configuration database schemas.
 10. It is highly desirable that text processing tools such as diff,
     and version management tools such as RCS or CVS, can be used to
     process configurations, which implies that devices should not
     arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists.
 11. The granularity of access control needed on management interfaces
     needs to match operational needs.  Typical requirements are a
     role-based access control model and the principle of least
     privilege, where a user can be given only the minimum access
     necessary to perform a required task.
 12. It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control
     lists across devices.
 13. It is important to distinguish between the distribution of
     configurations and the activation of a certain configuration.
     Devices should be able to hold multiple configurations.
 14. SNMP access control is data-oriented, while CLI access control is
     usually command (task) oriented.  Depending on the management
     function, sometimes data-oriented or task-oriented access control
     makes more sense.  As such, it is a requirement to support both
     data-oriented and task-oriented access control.
 So far, there is no published document that clearly defines the
 requirements of the operators.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 11] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

4. SNMP Framework Discussions

 During the discussions, many properties of the SNMP framework were
 1.  It is usually not possible to retrieve complete device
     configurations via SNMP so that they can be compared with
     previous configurations or checked for consistency across
     devices.  There is usually only incomplete coverage of device
     features via the SNMP interface, and there is a lack of
     differentiation between configuration data and operational state
     data for many features.
 2.  The quality of SNMP instrumentations is sometimes disappointing.
     SNMP access sometimes crashes systems or returns wrong data.
 3.  MIB modules and their implementations are not available in a
     timely manner (sometimes MIB modules lag years behind) which
     forces users to use the CLI.
 4.  Operators view current SNMP programming/scripting interfaces as
     being too low-level and thus too time consuming and inconvenient
     for practical use.
 5.  Lexicographic ordering is sometimes artificial with regard to
     internal data structures and causes either significant runtime
     overhead, or increases implementation costs or implementation
     delay or both.
 6.  Poor performance for bulk data transfers.  The typical examples
     are routing tables.
 7.  Poor performance on query operations that were not anticipated
     during the MIB design.  A typical example is the following query:
     Which outgoing interface is being used for a specific destination
 8.  The SNMP credentials and key management are considered complex,
     especially since they do not integrate well with other existing
     credential and key management systems.
 9.  The SMI language is hard to deal with and not very practical.
 10. MIB modules are often over-engineered in the sense that they
     contain lots of variables that operators do not look at.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 12] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 11. SNMP traps are used to track state changes but often syslog
     messages are considered more useful since they usually contain
     more information to describe the problem.  SNMP traps usually
     require subsequent get operations to figure out what the trap
     really means.
 12. Device manufacturers find SNMP instrumentations inherently
     difficult to implement, especially with complex table indexing
     schemes and table interrelationships.
 13. MIB modules often lack a description of how the various objects
     can be used to achieve certain management functions.  (MIB
     modules can often be characterized as a list of ingredients
     without a recipe.)
 14. The lack of structured types and various RPC interactions
     (methods) make MIB modules much more complex to design and
 15. The lack of query and aggregation capabilities (reduction of
     data) causes efficiency and scalability problems.
 16. The SNMP protocol was simplified in terms of the number of
     protocol operations and resource requirements on managed devices.
     It was not simplified in terms of usability by network operators
     or instrumentation implementors.
 17. There is a semantic mismatch between the low-level data-oriented
     abstraction level of MIB modules and the task-oriented
     abstraction level desired by network operators.  Bridging the gap
     with tools is in principle possible, but in general it is
     expensive as it requires some serious development and programming
 18. SNMP seems to work reasonably well for small devices which have a
     limited number of managed objects and where end-user management
     applications are shipped by the vendor.  For more complex
     devices, SNMP becomes too expensive and too hard to use.
 19. There is a disincentive for vendors to implement SNMP equivalent
     MIB modules for all their CLI commands because they do not see a
     valued proposition.  This undermines the value of third party
     standard SNMP solutions.
 20. Rapid feature development is in general not compatible with the
     standardization of the configuration interface.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 13] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

5. Consolidated Observations

 1.  Programmatic interfaces have to provide full coverage otherwise
     they will not be used by network operators since they have to
     revert to CLIs anyway.
 2.  Operators perceive that equipment vendors do not implement MIB
     modules in a timely manner.  Neither read-only nor read-write MIB
     modules are available on time today.
 3.  The attendees perceive that right now it is too hard to implement
     useful MIB modules within network equipment.
 4.  Because of the previous items, SNMP is not widely used today for
     network device configuration, although there are notable
 5.  It is necessary to clearly distinguish between configuration data
     and operational data.
 6.  It would be nice to have a single data definition language for
     all programmatic interfaces (in case there happen to be multiple
     programmatic interfaces).
 7.  In general, there is a lack of input from the enterprise network
     space.  Those enterprises who provided input tend to operate
     their networks like network operators.
 8.  It is required to be able to dump and reload a device
     configuration in a textual format in a standard manner across
     multiple vendors and device types.
 9.  It is desirable to have a mechanism to distribute configurations
     to devices under transactional constraints.
 10. Eliminating SNMP altogether is not an option.
 11. Robust access control is needed.  In addition, it is desirable to
     be able to enable/disable individual MIB modules actually
     implemented on a device.
 12. Textual configuration files should be able to contain
     international characters.  Human-readable strings should utilize
     the least-bad internationalized character set and encoding, which
     this year almost certainly means UTF-8.  Protocol elements should
     be in case insensitive ASCII.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 14] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 13. The deployed tools for event/alarm correlation, root cause
     analysis and logging are not sufficient.
 14. There is a need to support a human interface and a programmatic
 15. The internal method routines for both interfaces should be the
     same to ensure that data exchanged between these two interfaces
     is always consistent.
 16. The implementation costs have to be low on devices.
 17. The implementation costs have to be low on managers.
 18. The specification costs for data models have to be low.
 19. Standardization costs for data models have to be low.
 20. There should be a single data modeling language with a human
     friendly syntax.
 21. The data modeling language must support compound data types.
 22. There is a need for data aggregation capabilities on the devices.
 23. There should be a common data interchange format for instance
     data that allows easy post-processing and analysis.
 24. There is a need for a common data exchange format with single and
     multi-system transactions (which implies rollback across devices
     in error situations).
 25. There is a need to reduce the semantic mismatch between current
     data models and the primitives used by operators.
 26. It should be possible to perform operations on selected subsets
     of management data.
 27. It is necessary to discover the capabilities of devices.
 28. There is a need for a secure transport, authentication, identity,
     and access control which integrates well with existing key and
     credential management infrastructure.
 29. It must be possible to define task oriented views and access
     control rules.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 15] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 30. The complete configuration of a device should be doable with a
     single protocol.
 31. A configuration protocol must be efficient and reliable and it
     must scale in the number of transactions and devices.
 32. Devices must be able to support minimally interruptive
     configuration deltas.
 33. A solution must support function call semantics (methods) to
     implement functions, such as a longest prefix match on a routing

6. Recommendations

 1.  The workshop recommends that the IETF stop forcing working groups
     to provide writable MIB modules.  It should be the decision of
     the working group whether they want to provide writable objects
     or not.
 2.  The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
     current MIB modules do not contain all the objects needed by
     operators to monitor their networks.
 3.  The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
     the current SNMP protocol does not satisfy all the monitoring
     requirements of operators.
 4.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from both protocol
     developers and operators, that the IETF focus resources on the
     standardization of configuration management mechanisms.
 5.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
     and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the
     IETF/IRTF should spend resources on the development and
     standardization of XML-based device configuration and management
     technologies (such as common XML configuration schemas, exchange
     protocols and so on).
 6.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
     and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the
     IETF/IRTF should not spend resources on developing HTML-based or
     HTTP-based methods for configuration management.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 16] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

 7.  The workshop recommends, with rough consensus from the operators
     and strong consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
     should continue to spend resources on the evolution of the
     SMI/SPPI data definition languages as being done in the SMIng
     working group.
 8.  The workshop recommends, with split consensus from the operators
     and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
     should spend resources on fixing the MIB development and
     standardization process.
 The workshop also discussed the following items and achieved rough
 consensus, but did not make a recommendation.
 1.  The workshop had split consensus from the operators and rough
     consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF should not
     focus resources on CIM extensions.
 2.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
     that the IETF should not spend resources on COPS-PR development.
     So far, the operators have only very limited experience with
     COPS-PR.  In general, however, they felt that further development
     of COPS-PR might be a waste of resources as they assume that
     COPS-PR does not really address their requirements.
 3.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
     that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions.
     The operators had rough consensus that they do not care about
     SPPI PIBs.

7. Security Considerations

 This document is a report of an IAB Network Management workshop.  As
 such, it does not have any direct security implications for the

8. Acknowledgments

 The editor would like to thank Dave Durham, Simon Leinen and John
 Schnizlein for taking detailed minutes during the workshop.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 17] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

Normative References

 [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
            "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
            Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
 [CIM]      Distributed Management Task Force, "Common Information
            Model (CIM) Specification Version 2.2", DSP 0004, June
 [RFC3060]  Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen,
            "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1
            Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001.
 [RFC2748]  Durham, D., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan, R.
            and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
            Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
 [RFC3084]  Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie,
            K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R. and A. Smith,
            "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084,
            March 2001.
 [XML]      Bray, T., Paoli, J. and C. Sperberg-McQueen, "Extensible
            Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C Recommendation, February

Informative References

 [RFC2863]  McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
            MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
 [XSD]      David, D., "XML Schema Part 0: Primer", W3C
            Recommendation, May 2001.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 18] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

Appendix - Participants

 Ran Atkinson          Extreme Networks
 Rob Austein           InterNetShare
 Andy Bierman          Cisco Systems
 Steve Bellovin        AT&T
 Randy Bush            AT&T
 Leslie Daigle         VeriSign
 David Durham          Intel
 Vijay Gill
 Wes Hardaker          Network Associates Laboratories
 Ed Kern
 Simon Leinen          Switch
 Ken Lindahl           University of California Berkeley
 David Partain         Ericsson
 Andrew Partan         UUnet/Verio/MFN
 Vern Paxson           ICIR
 Aiko Pras             Univeristy of Twente
 Randy Presuhn         BMC Software
 Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck
 John Schnizlein       Cisco Systems
 Mike St. Johns
 Ruediger Volk         Deutsche Telekom
 Steve Waldbusser
 Margaret Wassermann   Windriver
 Glen Waters           Nortel Networks
 Bert Wijnen           Lucent

Author's Address

 Comments should be submitted to the <> mailing
 Juergen Schoenwaelder
 International University Bremen
 P.O. Box 750 561
 28725 Bremen
 Phone: +49 421 200 3587

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 19] RFC 3535 IAB Network Management Workshop May 2003

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an


 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Schoenwaelder Informational [Page 20]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3535.txt · Last modified: 2003/05/16 16:45 by

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki