Network Management Challenges for Next Generation Networks

Mo Li and Kumbesan Sandrasegaran Institute of Information and Communication Technologies and Faculty of Engineering University of Technology, Sydney {moli, kumbes}@eng.uts.edu.au Abstract
Generally, current network management technologies follow two approaches: ITU-Ts recommendations for Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) and IETFs Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) that favors IP networks. The applications based on these approaches are specifically targeted at a variety of independent networks including the standard Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the Public Switched Data Network (PSDN), the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), and the Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), etc., all of which will be integrated into a single IP-based infrastructure referred to as Next Generation Networks (NGN) in the near future. The services, network architectures and traffic pattern in NGN will dramatically differ from the current networks. The heterogeneity and complexity of NGN bring a number of challenges to its network management. In this paper, we first introduce the current network management approaches and describe some deficiencies of current solutions. Then, the network management challenges in NGN are presented and discussed. Finally, some emerging approaches towards network management in NGN are illustrated. scenarios. Thus, network management of current networks infrastructures has inevitably to be partitioned into multiple domains and located in various networks layers because of the heterogeneity of vendor technologies, and the coupling nature of services and networks. When the networks are evolving towards NGN, the scenario in the future would become more complex. A common core network is more likely to replace the current separate networks infrastructures for different services, such as PSTN dedicated for telephony voice. The carrying of all kinds of traffic, no matter it is voice, data, video or signaling would be possibly integrated onto one common platform. That would call for the corresponding network management systems. On the other hand, the NGN is also expected to offer ubiquitous services to NGN users, and host many innovative applications with high level intelligence. Consequently, a number of network management challenges would emerge and should be paid sufficient attention by NGN service providers and network operators. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, two popular network management approaches for current networks will be introduced and compared. Section 3 gives an overview of next generation networks. Taking into account the characteristics of NGN (mentioned in Section 3), Section 4 will try to explore the management challenges in NGN, and explain why they are difficult to be resolved by using traditional network management methods. In Section 5, some emerging approaches for network management are discussed. Finally, we finish this paper with conclusions in Section 6.

1. Introduction
For the network management of telecomm networks and IP networks, there have existed two widely-adopted approaches. The first one is derived from ITU M.3000 recommendation series building on open systems interconnection standards (OSI) and is known as Telecommunication Management Network (TMN). The second one is supported by IETF and based on Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), which has become the de facto standard in the management fields of IP networks. These two general approaches have thus adopted different standards and implementation methods, and are also designed for different network architectures. In the past decade, they have been well accommodated the management requirements coming from the separated networks, such as PSTN and PLMN (see Fig. 1), known as traditional

2. Current Network Management

Networks in essence can be broadly classified as telecommunications networks and IP networks. Accordingly, current network management solutions have followed two general technical directions: ITU-Ts Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) for telecommunications networks and IETFs Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) for IP networks. These two approaches adopt different standards, protocols and implementations. Despite of

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE

their specific design for telecommunications and IP networks, they have shown more or less deficiencies in practice, especially when coping with the evolving network technologies. In this section, we briefly introduce and analyze these two approaches, and then compare them from several points of view.

technologies. The CMIP and CORBA based management solutions are two typical representatives of TMN applications.

2.2 SNMP Approach

Current IP networks are often managed via Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), which is pushed by IETF as a specification, initially presented for the Internet. So far, there have been several versions of SNMP. The common ones are SNMPv1 (described in RFC1157) and SNMPv2 (described in RFC 1441-52). The SNMP is an application layer protocol and uses User Datagram Protocol (UDP) to exchange management information between management entities. Basically, the SNMP-based application consists of two logical components: agent and manager. An agent often resides in the managed devices and has the Management Information Base (MIB) to store managed objects. While, a manager refers to an entity that is interacting with its managed agents, and it often resides in network management applications. The messaging between manager and agent is implemented by a set of polling and responding operations, such as GET_NEXT_REQUEST, GET_RESPONSE, and TRAP. Although SNMP is only a lightweight implementation for network management, additional standards were added in recent years, such as SNMPv3 and RMON in order to enhance its management functionalities, especially in security and performance.
Network Management Systems Dedicated for Independent Network

2.1 TMN Approach

The telecommunications management network (TMN) has been widely adopted to manage telecommunications networks, ranging from transportation backbones to access networks. The TMN provides a structured framework for enabling interconnectivity and communication across heterogeneous operating systems and telecommunications networks. The TMN is defined in ITU M.3000 recommendation series, which cover a set of standards including common management information protocol (CMIP), guideline for definition of managed objects (GDMO) and abstract syntax notation one (ASN.1). The TMN primarily contributes to network management in the following two aspects:
Multivendor operation and interconnectivity Hierarchy modeling and Definition of functionality

In TMN, multivendor management is achieved via a standard Q interface, which mediates the communication between two TMN-conformant functional blocks. For example, the CORBA-based NML-EML [5] interface between Element Management System (EMS) and Network Management System (NMS) is defined to facilitate multi-technology compatibility. Separate management domains belonging to different vendors can be integrated under a common platform at network layer by applying an adapted Q interface, e.g. Q3 interface to be applied between EMS and NMS. Theoretically, the interconnectivity across heterogeneous Operation Systems (OSs) and networks can thus be implemented. In the framework of TMN, the following logical layers are defined:
Network Elements (NE) Element Management Layer (EML) Network-management Layer (NML) Service-management Layer (SML) Business-management Layer (BML)

P S D N

P S T N

P L M N

W L A N

While, the functionalities of TMN are defined to cover 5 major areas: configuration management, fault management, performance management, accounting management and security management. Such kind of two-dimensional partition provides a well-structured framework for developing network management system. That is why the TMN concept is so popular, and can be seen in various implementations of network management

Network management functionalities are vertically located in Independent Transport, Switching and Access Networks

Network management system

Figure 1 Current Network Management for Independent Networks

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE

2.3 TMN vs. SNMP

Currently, the network management systems for independent networks are separated from each other (shown in Fig. 1). The network management systems for PSDN, PSTN, PLMN and WLAN are provided independently in each network. In addition, the management functions and implementations are often isolated and vertically distributed in transport,

switching and access networks. The choosing of appropriate network management technologies has to be considered in the specific context of managed networks. In order to illustrate the weakness of current network management approaches, the comparisons between TMN and SNMP management approaches has been done in Table 1.

Table 1 Comparison between TMN and SNMP Approaches Aspects

Complexity

TMN
Feature-rich modeling of managed objects described in GDMO. However, the data modeling and abstracting are very complex because of TMSs fine-grained definition for interface and object. TMN gives a general framework for network management, and major functional areas that have been widely accepted in industry. Other security features are also included, such as access control and security logging. The use of data communication networks (DCN) for internal communication makes it physically secure. Multi-vendor support is achieved at network management layer by implementing an interface between EMS and NMS. NMS can exchange events via its northbound interface with different EMSs that have provided a southbound interface. However, practically, it is difficult and expensive to implement NMS-EMS interface because of the complexity of TMN. The communication between NE/NMS and EMS requires the special OSI protocol stacks, which are rare supported by common LAN or WAN. As a result, commercial OSI protocol stacks have to be installed in the networking devices on DCN, such as HPs OTS/9000. Taking CMIP and CORBA architecture as an example, the development of the core components in TMN has to rely on many third-party software packages. The implementation and running of TMN systems have higher requirements to networks and operation systems.

SNMP
Simplified design and architecture. In addition, the variables in SNMP can be easily programmed. It is simple and easy to use. SNMP follows TMNs framework for management functionalities. But, SNMP agents can only collect information from devices, lacking the ability of analyzing. The openness and IP-oriented nature of SNMP makes it not secure as TMN-based protocols, such as CMIP, which defines management services exchanged between peer entities in TMN. Multi-vendor support can be offered by retrieving objects from public MIBs (e.g. SNMPv1) that reside in the managed devices of different vendors. While, for private MIBs, the interface for specific vendor has to be developed.

Functionality

Multi-vendor

Communication

Implementation

SNMP is initially designed for IP technology and uses UDP to carry management data. It can easily run on nearly any network because of the popularity of TCP/IP. However, SNMP is connectionless with lower overhead, and thus cant guarantee the deliver of messages. The development of SNMP interface is relatively simple because of the simplicity of the standards and availability of TCP/IP protocol used. The cost of implementing SNMP network management is much lower, compared to the development of TMN-based architecture.

In general, SNMP approach is simple, cost-effective and open in standards. The simplicity and ease of implementation of SNMP is why it is the most popular protocol for managing networks. In contrast, the CMIP or CORBA based TMN approaches are initially proposed for the management of telecommunications networks, and concentrate on reliability and stability of networks. Because of the incurred complexity, it requires more resources to develop and run. Therefore, it is most suitable for some mission critical applications, such as the management of transportation backbones.

3. Next Generation Networks

The NGN is regarded as a network that can provide independent access to applications and contents, and is

able to support multiple services in its common core & access networks. The NGN is expected to integrate services offered by traditional networks and other innovative IP services into a single service platform. In the ETSIs definition for NGN [11], it is described as a concept for defining and deploying networks which, due to their formal separation into different layers and planes, and the use of open interfaces, offers service providers and operators a platform which can evolve in a step- by- step manner to create, deploy and manage innovative services. The key cornerstone of the NGN is the decoupling of services and networks, allowing them to be offered separately. The transport functions provide transfer of information between peer entities. The service functions are concerned with the application and service to be

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE

operated between peer entities. In NGN, each of them needs to be treated separately from both technical and management policy point of view.

Fig. 3 shows a typical NGN scenario in which service network, core network, access network and user equipment are distributed in a layered architecture.

Service Network

WAP LDAP Configuration Server

AAA
Private High Speed Network

SIP Proxy Server Media Server Firewall

Next Generation Networks

Global Internet

Core Network

Web Server IP Backbone

Gateway

Access Network User Equipment

Gateway

Access Network LAN ADSL Optical Fiber

NGN will require a clean separation of services and transport functions with the maximum degree of reuse built into the architecture and its components.

Satellite

Wireless

Figure 3 Typical NGN Scenarios In Fig. 3, the demonstrated NGN network consists of 4 parts: Service network, Core network, Access network and User equipment. The service network is comprised of a diversity of service servers, such as Web Server, AAA, SIP Proxy Server and LDAP configuration server. These servers can be put together using a dedicated high-speed network. The service network is only responsible for providing services and applications for NGN users. The connection between service network and core network can be implemented via a gateway. Core network in NGN looks more like the transportation backbone in traditional networks. Core network is concerned with transfer of information between peer entities. Besides the transfer of packets, control and management functions are also implemented in this network. It can also communicate with global Internet for data exchange. Access network in NGN is derived from the existing access technologies. To accommodate various access mediums, the access network is separated from the core network of NGN. It serves as an intermediate between user equipments and core network. Some characteristics of NGN and the services it needs to support are illustrated below: Packet-based transfer. Signals to be transmitted via NGN will be digitized and broken into smaller segments known as packets. These packets are then sent over the network where they are then reassembled at the receiver. End-to-end QoS. The dominance of IP in NGN would shift the paradigm from IP over everything to everything over IP. In order to manage the multitude of applications such as voice over IP (VoIP), video conferencing and peer-to-peer computing, differentiated delay, jitter, bandwidth and packet loss should be addressed in networks. Such parameters form the basis of end-to-end QoS. Decoupling of service provision from network. This means that an organization providing services does not have to provide their own (through construction, purchase or lease) transmission mediums. Networks and services can be operated separately by independent organizations. Open interfaces. The NGN will provide open interface to service providers to make the management of multiple networks easier by enabling a single-point monitor. Open interface enables that the functions of one component can be readily accessed by external organization without knowing technical details of how these functions are implemented. It is often implemented by applying open standards in developing interfaces between systems. Provision of improved mobility. In order to allow mobility across heterogeneous environments, the interoperability both in access technologies and core networks has to be supported. Furthermore, a major step in NGN will be the consistent service provision for users.

4. Challenges in Future
Although NGN will derive greatly from the current telecommunications networks and IP-based infrastructure, its control and management architecture is likely to be radically different from both, and will be anchored on a clean separation between a QoS-enabled transport/network domain and an object-oriented service/application domain, with a distributed processing environment [12]. The pressure

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE

arising from deregulation, competition and rapid technology development together with the fresh vision of NGN would generate significant challenges in terms of operation, administration and maintenance of networks and services.

4.1 Dynamic Topology

In NGN, it is reasonable to expect that devices, especially high-end routers and switches, will become increasingly programmable, and that it will become possible to execute more control software directly on the devices [13]. As a result, network topology of common networks of NGN can change occasionally. In addition, the collaboration between disparate network domains or between different service providers will increase to a great extent. Dynamic configuration and topology of NGN will challenge the traditional configuration management approaches, which are often inefficient and involve too many human efforts. In NGN, a quick-response and network-wide configuration capability is required to manage the changing network topology which may be composed of thousands of distributed nodes.

best-effort approach in the current Internet, the NGN is optimized for differentiated services where QoS and reliability of services will be engineered and guaranteed. Accordingly, the traffic management capability for differentiated NGN services and traffic has to be provided so as to monitor and control any concerned service. In the traditional TMN framework, traffic management has not been addressed clearly since all network connections are at fixed rate. In NGN, the fine-grained controlling and monitoring of traffic pattern will become an important consideration for NGN service providers and network operators.

4.4 Standardization
For any service provider or network operator in NGN, the biggest motivation for adopting new operations support system (OSS) is to maximize Return On Investment (ROI). Besides taking advantage of new technologies coping with issues such as multiple services, other industry trends have to be considered, such as the trend towards commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components and systems promising seamless integration (plug-and-play). Most important of all, the fundamental management architecture for NGN shall be considered. In the TMN architecture of the ITU-T, no further decomposition of the proposed layers into specific functions is proposed [13]. A universally agreed set of management requirements for NGN are lacked. In order to support the core functions of NGN, the management framework, architecture, information model and management protocols have to be standardized and agreed among a number of NGN participants. Although ITU-Ts NGN Management Focus Group is emerging for necessary management standards, standardization in the area of network management for NGN is still fragmented at many different standards bodies.

4.2 Heterogeneity
The NGN will not only contain the legacy components from traditional PSTN, but also some brand new components from the development of up-to-date technologies, e.g. Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS). Meanwhile, the flexibility based on trust negotiation among disparate domains is required in the pervasive computing environments of NGN. As the Internet has proven, it is impractical for a single service provider to roll out all the services that its customers need. The interoperability among heterogeneous entities will become critical important for NGN. For these reasons, different vendors platforms/technologies have to be converged and managed on a common platform in order to support and improve NGN services. Together with some emerging approaches (illustrated in Section 5), both CMIP and SNMP can be the candidates for the next-generation network management protocols. Limited by the multi-vendor capability and other weaknesses of current approaches (described in Section 2), how to deal with heterogeneous resources in a cost-effective manner thus becomes the big challenge for NGN.

5. Emerging Approaches
Apart from the traditional network management approaches, such those using CMIP and SNMP, a number of technologies are being developed, and are likely to be adopted in network management of NGN.

5.1 Web Services Management

Web services are promising in supporting a wide range of distributed services and transparently hiding technical implementation details, and thereby reduce integration costs. Web services are composed of several building blocks built on top of XML and SOAP, the latter of which is a stateless message exchange mechanism. Because SOAP messages can work with standard Web protocols, such as XML, HTTP and TCP/IP, they can function well across heterogeneous network

4.3 Multiple Services (Traffic Considerations)

As demonstrated in Section 3, the NGN is packet-based, and responsible for carrying multiple services over the single IP-based transport network, ranging from traditional telephony voice to data, video and multimedia applications. Apart from the

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE

components. The ubiquitous availability of HTTP and the simplicity of XML-based SOAP make Web services ideal for system interconnections. XML-based management approaches has been around for a few years, and a number of vendors have been working on it. Although not accepted as standards by major management communities, it has been seen in some vendors products, e.g. Junipers JUNOScript application programming interface.

6. Conclusion
To date, the mainstream network management approaches have shown some deficiencies in coping with the heterogeneous, dynamic and scalable network environments. Current networks are evolving rapidly towards NGN, which has shown many new characteristics and is expected to support multiple IP-based services. A variety of challenges in NGN make current management approaches not applicable in the future. Some foreseeable challenges have been discussed in this paper, combined with the characteristics and services of NGN. Furthermore, promising evolutionary and revolutionary approaches were presented to illuminate emerging technical trends in the network management development of NGN.

5.2 Policy-Based Management

Policy-Based Network Management (PBNM) provides a means by which the administration process can be simplified and largely automated [14]. In traditional network management approaches, such as SNMP, the usage of network management system has been limited primarily to monitoring status of network. In PBNM, the information model and policy expressions can be made independent of network management protocols by which they are carried. The architecture of policy-based management system is given in Fig. 4 as a demonstration.

7. References
[1] [2] Next Generation Networks, IEC.ORG tutorial H.M. Sigurdsson, S.E. Thorsteinsson, T.K. Stidsen, Cost optimization methods in the design of next generation networks, Communications Magazine, IEEE, Volume 42, Issue 9, Sept. 2004 pp.118-122 "Next Generation Networks and the Cisco Carrier Routing System", Cisco Systems, Inc., White Paper, September 1, 2004 Telecommunications Management Network, IEC.ORG tutorial Felix F.Flemisch, Using CORBA for Multi-Technology Network Management (MTNM), MTNM Phase III Modelling Team, TeleManagementForum, 12 May 2003 Dan Plakosh, Simple Network Management Protocol, Carnegie Mellon SEI, URL: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/snmp.html UPnP Device Architecture, UPnP Forum, Jun 2000 David Durham, "A New Paradigm for Policy-Based Network Control", Intel Developer UPDATE Magazine, Intel Labs, November 2001 "A Practical Introduction to SOAP Web Services", White Paper, systinet, 2003 Yao Liang, A Programmable Control Architecture for TMN Q3 Interface, Communications, Circuits and Systems and West Sino Expositions, IEEE 2002 International Conference, Volume 1, 2002 T. Dagiuklas, "NGN Architecture and Characteristics", ETSI, June 2001 A. R. Modarressi and S. Mohan, "Control and management in next-generation networks: challenges and opportunities," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 38, pp. 94, 2000. J. Schonwalder, A. Pras, and J. P. Martin-Flatin, "On the future of Internet management technologies," Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 41, pp. 90, 2003. D. C. Verma, "Simplifying network administration using policy-based management," Network, IEEE, vol. 16, pp. 20, 2002.

`
Policy Manager

[3]

[4] [5]
Policy Server (PDP) COPS

Policy Repository

[6]

Administrative Domain

[7] [8]

Figure 4 Policy-Based Management System In the demonstrated system in Fig. 4, the policy manager acts as an interface to management functions and commands. The predefined policies such as polling interval, performance parameters can be stored in the policy repository, which is based on directory services. The Policy Decision Point (PDP) is the functional core of the whole system. It is responsible for the defining and distributing of policies to each Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) so as to achieve management functions. To support the scalability, the central policy server can be replaced by a set of hierarchical servers, which maintains coherency. Generally, the PBNM can provide network-wide control and management for NGN. All in all, both evolutionary (e.g. PBNM) and revolutionary approaches (e.g. Web Services) contribute to a more Open and Manageable next generation network.

[9] [10]

[11] [12]

[13]

[14]

Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks 30th Anniversary (LCN05) 0-7695-2421-4/05 $20.00 2005

IEEE