[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 5706

Network Working Group                                      D. Harrington
Internet-Draft                                   Huawei Technologies USA
Intended status: Best Current                         September 12, 2007
Practice
Expires: March 15, 2008


 Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols
             draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-00

Status of This Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 15, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
   consideration of operations and management issues related to the
   protocol.  Retrofitting operations and management recommendations to
   protocols is sub-optimal.  The purpose of this document is to provide
   guidance to authors of protocol documents about aspects to consider
   related to the operations and management that should be considered
   for inclusion in documents defining requirements or functionality of



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   new protocols or protocol extensions.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Design for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Operations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
           Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  Impact on Network Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.6.  Verifying Correct Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  Management Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.3.  Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.1.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.2.  Fault Determination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.3.  Fault Isolation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.4.  Corrective Action  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.4.  Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       4.4.1.  Verifying Correct Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.4.2.  Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.5.  Accounting Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.6.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.7.  Security Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   5.  Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.1.  SNMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.2.  SYSLOG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.3.  IPFIX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.4.  NETCONF  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.5.  COPS-PR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.6.  RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.7.  Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.8.  EPP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.9.  XCAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     5.10. Other Protocols  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  Existing IETF Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.1.  Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     6.2.  Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     6.3.  Accounting Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     6.4.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     6.5.  Security Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   7.  Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


     7.1.  Recommended Discussions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     7.2.  Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 29
     7.3.  Placement of Operations and Manageability
           Considerations Sections  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix A.  Operations and Management Checklist . . . . . . . . . 35
   Appendix B.  Additional MIB Modules on the Standards Track . . . . 35
   Appendix C.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35








































Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


1.  Introduction

   When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed, it is often
   the case that not enough consideration is given to the way in which
   new protocols will be deployed in the network and operated and
   managed once deployed.  The result is that operations and management
   issues are only taken into consideration after the protocols have
   been implemented and sometimes not until after they have been
   deployed.  Attempts to retrofit operations and management mechanisms
   are not always easy or architecturally pleasant, and certain protocol
   design choices may make deployment, operations, and management
   particularly hard to achieve later.  Since operations and management
   issues may be fundamental to the utility and success of protocols
   designed within the IETF, this document provides guidelines to help
   protocol designers and working groups consider the operations and
   management issues of their new protocol at an earlier phase.

   [DISCUSS - This document seems to be just as concerned with the
   protocol designer's "mind-set" and the protocol development process
   as it is with the protocol as a finished product.  While we all agree
   that it would be a good thing to imprint operational sensitivities
   into the consciousness of the protocol developer, I do not think that
   this is a practical goal.  The best that we can do is to set forth a
   list of objective criteria by which a protocol designer can evaluate
   whether the protocol that he/she has developed is manageable.]

   [DISCUSS: - the document may attempt to cover too much ground.  Maybe
   it will develop into a framework document, supported by documents of
   the following sort: . what makes a MIB usable? . how much protocol
   state information needs to be exposed and how? . how much performance
   information needs to be exposed and how?]

1.1.  Terminology

   This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) key words
   described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].  RFC 2119 states the keywords must
   only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to
   limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
   retransmissions).  For example, they must not be used to try to
   impose a particular method on implementers where the method is not
   required for interoperability.  This document is a set of guidelines
   based on current practices of protocol designers and operators.  This
   document does not describe requirements, so the key words from
   RFC2119 have no place here.

   o  "new protocol" includes new protocols, protocol extensions, data
      models, or other functionality being designed.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   o  "working group" represents individuals and working groups involved
      in the development of new protocols.

   o  [DISCUSS] markers indicate a lack of consensus on what should be
      written.

   o  [TODO] markers indicate the editor has a reasonable understanding
      of what needs to be (re-)written.  Contributions of text would be
      welcome.

2.  Design for Operations and Management

   "Design for operations and management" means that the operational
   environment and manageability of the protocol should be considered
   from the start when new protocols are designed.  This requires a
   change in mind-set.  Protocol designers typically do not like to look
   at the management aspects of their new protocol.  They are busy
   working out the details of their new protocol, and do not take time
   to consider what would be necessary to make the protocol manageable
   and easy to deploy.  Because many of the working groups developing
   protocols have no background in management or operations, they also
   feel uncomfortable working on aspects of a protocol design that is
   unfamiliar to them.  This document provides guidelines to working
   groups about what to consider.

   This document seeks to educate working groups about some common
   aspects of operations and management so they can design better
   protocol solutions.

   It is easier for a WG editor to write a document for associated
   management functionality if the WG has already researched and weighed
   the management options, and reached consensus on the management
   requirements.

   It is a noble goal to consider management from the very early start
   of new protocol work, but we also have to accept that sometimes
   management requirements will only be understood once a technology has
   been deployed and some experience has been gained.  It should be
   expected that initial considerations for operations and management
   may need to be updated in the future.

   This document is not about requiring all internet-drafts to include a
   new "Operations and Management Considerations" section.  Experiments
   to require such sections have had a mixed reaction from protocol
   developers.  The IESG has also expressed hesitation about requiring
   new Considerations sections.

   We should also be careful and point out that this document really



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   just provides guidelines and should not be misused to slow down
   protocol development since sometimes it is better to get a protocol
   out in a timely fashion without management considerations instead of
   being delayed some years when it is too late to be successful.
   Releasing IETF documents including protocol definition without any
   consideration about how the protocol and networks running the
   protocol will be managed and what are the operational implications of
   deployment also seems wrong A balance is needed.  This document tries
   to find the right balance - what is the minimal information that
   needs to be included in a protocol definition document that shows how
   the protocol will be deployed and managed.  Minimal but not less than
   this.

2.1.  Motivation

   The IETF has indicated a desire to have operations and manageability
   considered during the development of new protocols, using a proactive
   "design for operability and manageability" approach that documents
   how a new protocol is expected to be operated and managed.

   For years the IETF has stressed the use of the Standard Management
   Framework and SMI MIB modules [RFC2578] for managing new protocols.
   The IETF designed the Standard Management Framework and SMI MIB
   modules to permit multiple protocols to utilize the MIB data
   [RFC1052], but it became a common misunderstanding that a MIB module
   could only be used with the SNMP protocol.(defined in [RFC3410] and
   associated documents).

   In 2001, OPS Area design teams were created to document issues and
   requirements related to configuration of IP-based networks.  One
   output was "Requirements for Configuration Management of IP-based
   Networks" [RFC3139]

   In 2003, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop on
   Network Management [RFC3535] that discussed the strengths and
   weaknesses of some IETF network management protocols, and compared
   them to operational needs.  Most of those needs are discussed further
   in this document.

   This document recommends working groups consider operations and
   management needs, and then select appropriate standard management
   protocols and data models to address the relevant operations and
   management needs, just as they consider which security threats are
   relevant to their protocol, and then select appropriate standard
   security protocols to mitigate the relevant threats.

   For example, a working group could decide whether a MIB module,
   SYSLOG messages, an LDAP structure, an XML schema, or another



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   solution is the best way to monitor and manage the functionality of a
   new protocol.  The protocol to use for management will follow from
   this analysis rather than being SNMP by fiat.

   One good method that can be considered by protocol designers is to
   make an analysis of the operational environment and mode of work the
   future protocol or extension will work in.  Such an exercise needs
   not be reflected directly by text in their document, but could help
   in visualizing the operational model related to the applicability of
   the protocol in the Internet environments where it will be deployed.
   The operational model should take into account issues like: - what
   type of management entities will be involved (agents, network
   management systems)? what is the possible architecture (client-
   server, manager-agent, polling-driven or event-driven,
   autoconfiguration, two levels or hierarchical)? what are the basic
   management operations - initial configuration, dynamic configuration,
   alarms and exceptions reporting, logging, performance monitoring,
   performance reporting? how are these operations performed - locally,
   remotely, atomic operation, scripts? what are the typical user
   interfaces - Command line (CLI) or graphical user interface (GUI)?

3.  Operational Considerations

   When a new protocol is deployed in a network, it may affect the
   network negatively.  A working group should consider deployment of a
   new protocol or protocol extension in a network, impact on the
   network operations, traffic levels and operation of other protocols
   or previous versions of the protocol, how the new protocol will be
   operated, and how its presence might affect the existing deployment.

   Operations and manageability considerations should focus on
   interoperability of externally observable behaviors.

3.1.  Operations Model

   Working groups should consider how the new protocol will be managed
   in different deployment sizes.  It might be sensible to use a local
   management interface to manage the new protocol on a single device,
   but in a large network, remote management using a centralized server
   and/or using distributed management functionality might make more
   sense.  Auto-configuration might be possible for some new protocols.

   There may be a need to support a human interface, e.g., for
   troubleshooting, and a programmatic interface, e.g., for automated
   monitoring and root cause analysis.  It might be important that the
   internal method routines for both interfaces should be the same to
   ensure that data exchanged between these two interfaces is always
   consistent.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   Working groups should consider what management operations are
   expected to be performed as result of the deployment of the protocol
   - such as whether write operations will be allowed on routers and on
   hosts, or if notifications for alarms or other events will be
   expected.

3.2.  Installation and Initial Setup

   Working groups should consider default values that make protocol
   sense, to simplify configuration, including default modes and
   parameters.  For example, it could be helpful or necessary to specify
   default values for modes, timers, default state of logical control
   variables, default transports, and so on.  Even if default values are
   used, it must be possible to retrieve all the actual values or at
   least an indication that known default values are being used.

   Working groups should consider how to enable operators to concentrate
   on the configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual
   devices.

3.3.  Migration Path

   If the new protocol is a new version of the protocol, or is replacing
   another technology, the working group should consider how deployments
   should transition to the new protocol.  This should include co-
   existence with previously deployed protocols and/or previous versions
   of the same protocol, incompatibilities between versions, translation
   between versions, and side effects that might occur.  Are older
   protocols or versions disabled or do they co-exist in the network
   with the new protocol?

3.4.  Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components

   Working groups should consider the requirements that the new protocol
   might put on other protocols and functional components, and should
   also document the requirements from other protocols that have been
   considered in designing the new protocol.

   These considerations should generally remain illustrative to avoid
   creating restrictions or dependencies, or potentially impacting the
   behavior of existing protocols, or restricting the extensibility of
   other protocols, or assuming other protocols will not be extended in
   certain ways.

3.5.  Impact on Network Operation

   The introduction of a new protocol or extensions to an existing
   protocol may have an impact on the operation of existing networks.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   Protocol designers should outline such impacts (which may be
   positive) including scaling concerns and interactions with other
   protocols.  For example, a new protocol that doubles the number of
   active, reachable addresses in use within a network might need to be
   considered in the light of the impact on the scalability of the IGPs
   operating within the network.

   The working group should consider the potential impact on the
   behavior of other protocols in the network and on the traffic levels
   and traffic patterns that might change, including specific types of
   traffic such as multicast.  Also consider the need to install new
   components that are added to the network as result of the changes in
   the operational model, such as servers performing auto-configuration
   operations.

   It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration
   changes.  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.

3.6.  Verifying Correct Operation

   The working group should consider techniques for testing the effect
   that the protocol has had on the network by sending data through the
   network and observing its behavior.  Working groups should consider
   how the correct end-to-end operation of the new protocol in the
   network can be tested, and how the correct data or forwarding plane
   function of each network element can be verified to be working
   properly with the new protocol.

   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.

4.  Management Considerations

   The considerations of manageability should start from describing the
   operational model, which includes identifying the entities to be
   managed, how the respective protocol is supposed to be installed,
   configured and monitored, who are the managers and what type of
   management interfaces and protocols they would use.

   Considerations for management should include a discussion of what
   needs to be managed.  This document, for better or worse, talks
   mainly about management of a protocol endpoint on a single device.
   It doesn't talk about managing the *protocol* (it manages one end at
   a time), and doesn't even come near managing the *service* (which



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   includes a lot of stuff that's very far away from the box).  In a
   client/server protocol, it may be more important to instrument the
   server end of a protocol than the client end.

   One issue that the IETF has always struggled with (and for which we
   still have no good guidance) is the problem of how to configure
   multiple related/co-operating devices and how to back off if one of
   those configurations fails or causes trouble.  NETCONF addresses this
   somewhat by allowing an operator to lock the configuration on
   multiple devices, perform the configuration settings/changes, check
   that they are OK (undo if not) and then unlock the devices.

   Protocol debugging is not part (and should not be part) of the
   Network Management tools/hooks in a system.  Debugging is an
   implementation-dependent issue, not a protocol standardization issue.

4.1.  Interoperability

   Just as when deploying protocols that will inter-connect devices, our
   primary goal in considering management should be interoperability,
   whether across devices from different vendors, across models from the
   same vendor, or across different releases of the same product.

   Some product designers and protocol designers assume that if a device
   can be managed individually using a command line interface or a web
   page interface, that such a solution is enough.  But when equipment
   from multiple vendors is combined into a large network, scalability
   of management becomes a problem.  It is important to have consistency
   in the management interfaces so network-wide operational processes
   can be automated.

   Getting everybody to agree on a certain syntax and the protocol
   associated with that has proven to be difficult.  So management
   systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether the IETF
   likes this or not.  The IETF is moving from support for a single
   management data modeling language and a single management protocol
   towards support for multiple management protocols and multiple data
   models suited to different purposes, such as logging (syslog),
   configuration (netconf), and usage accounting (ipfix).  Other
   Standard Development Organizations (e.g.  DMTF, TMF) also define
   management mechanisms and these mechanisms may be more suitable than
   IETF mechanisms in some cases.

   Interoperability needs to be considered on the syntactic level and
   the semantic level.  While it can be irritating and time-consuming,
   application designers including operators who write their own scripts
   can make their processing conditional to accommodate differences
   across vendors or models or releases of product.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   Semantic differences are much harder to deal with on the manager side
   - once you have the data, its meaning is a function of the managed
   entity.  For example, if a single counter provided by vendor A counts
   three types of error conditions, while the corresponding counter
   provided by vendor B counts seven types of error conditions, these
   counters cannot be compared effectively - they are not interoperable
   counters.

   Information models are helpful to try to focus interoperability on
   the semantic level - they establish standards for what information
   should be gathered, and how gathered information might be used
   regardless of which management interface carries the data or which
   vendor produces the product.  The use of an information model might
   help improve the ability of operators to correlate messages in
   different protocols where the data overlaps, such as a SYSLOG message
   and an SNMP notification about the same event.  An information model
   might identify which error conditions should be counted separately,
   and which error conditions can be counted together in a single
   counter.  Then, whether the counter is gathered via SNMP or a CLI
   command or a SYSLOG message, the counter will have similar meaning.

   Protocol designers should consider which information might be useful
   for managing the new protocol or protocol extensions.

                IM                --> conceptual/abstract model
                 |                    for designers and operators
      +----------+---------+
      |          |         |
      DM        DM         DM     --> concrete/detailed model
                                      for implementers

   Information Models and Data Models

                                 Figure 1

   On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models
   [RFC3444] may be useful in determining what information to consider
   regarding information models, as compared to data models.

   Information models should come from the protocol WGs and include
   lists of events, counters and configuration parameters that are
   relevant.  There are a number of information models contained in
   protocol WG RFCs.  Some examples:

   o  [RFC3060] - Policy Core Information Model version 1

   o  [RFC3290] - An Informal Management Model for DiffServ Routers




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   o  [RFC3460] - Policy Core Information Model Extensions

   o  [RFC3585] - IPsec Configuration Policy Information Model

   o  [RFC3644] - Policy Quality of Service Information Model

   o  [RFC3670] - Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS
      Datapath Mechanisms

   o  [RFC3805] - Printer MIB v2 (contains both an IM and a DM

   Management protocol standards and management data model standards
   often contain compliance clauses to ensure interoperability.
   Manageability considerations should include discussion of which level
   of compliance is expected to be supported for interoperability.

4.2.  Management Information

   Operators find it important to be able to make a clear distinction
   between configuration data, operational state, and statistics.  They
   need to determine which parameters were administrative configured and
   which parameters have changed since configuration as the result of
   mechanisms such as routing protocols.

   It is important to be able to separately fetch configuration data,
   operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be able
   to compare current state to initial state, and to compare data
   between devices.

   A management information model should include a discussion of what is
   manageable, which aspects of the protocol need to be configured, what
   types of operations are allowed, what protocol-specific events might
   occur, which events can be counted, and for which events should an
   operator be notified.

   What is typically difficult to work through are relationships between
   abstract objects.  Ideally an information model would describe the
   relationships between the objects and concepts in the information
   model.

   Is there always just one instance of this object or can there be
   multiple instances?  Does this object relate to exactly one other
   object or may it relate to multiple?  When is it possible to change a
   relationship?

   Do objects (such as rows in tables) share fate?  For example, if a
   row in table A must exist before a related row in table B can be
   created, what happens to the row in table B if the related row in



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   table A is deleted?  Does the existence of relationships between
   objects have an impact on fate sharing?

4.3.  Fault Management

   If notifications are used to alert operators to certain conditions,
   then the working group should discuss mechanisms to throttle
   notifications to prevent congestion.

4.3.1.  Liveness Detection and Monitoring

   Liveness detection and monitoring applies both to the control plane
   and the data plane.  Mechanisms for detecting faults in the control
   plane or for monitoring its liveness are usually built into the
   control plane protocols or inherited from underlying data plane or
   forwarding plane protocols.  These mechanisms do not typically
   require additional management capabilities.  However, when a system
   detects a control plane fault, there is often a requirement to
   coordinate recovery action through management applications or at
   least to record the fact in an event log.

   Where the protocol is responsible for establishing data or user plane
   connectivity, liveness detection and monitoring usually need to be
   achieved through other mechanisms.  In some cases, these mechanisms
   already exist within other protocols responsible for maintaining
   lower layer connectivity, but it will often be the case that new
   procedures are required to detect failures in the data path and to
   report rapidly, allowing remedial action to be taken.

   [DISCUSS:: 'control plane' and 'data plane' are such slippery terms
   that I think they need to be defined.]

4.3.2.  Fault Determination

   It can be helpful to describe how faults can be pinpointed using
   management information.  For example, counters might record instances
   of error conditions.  Some faults might be able to be pinpointed by
   comparing the outputs of one device and the inputs of another device
   looking for anomalies.

4.3.3.  Fault Isolation

   It might be useful to isolate faults, such as a system that emits
   malformed messages necessary to coordinate connections properly.
   Spanning tree comes to mind.  This might be able to be done by
   configuring next-hop devices to drop the faulty messages to prevent
   them from entering the rest of the network.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


4.3.4.  Corrective Action

   What sort of corrective action can be taken by an operator for each
   of the fault conditions that are being identified?

4.4.  Configuration Management

   RFC3139 [RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration
   management.  This document includes discussion of different levels of
   management, including high-level-policies, network-wide configuration
   data, and device-local configuration.

   A number of efforts have existed in the IETF to develop policy-based
   management.  RFC3198 was written to standardize the terminology for
   policy-based management across these efforts.

   It is highly desirable that text processing tools such as diff, and
   version management tools such as RCS or CVS or SVN, can be used to
   process configurations.  This approach simplifies comparing the
   current operational state to the initial configuration.

   With structured text such as XML, simple text diffs may be found to
   be inadequate and more sophisticated tools may be needed to make any
   useful comparison of versions.

   To simplify such configuration comparisons, devices should not
   arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists.  If a working
   group defines mechanisms for configuration, it would be desirable to
   standardize the order of elements for consistency of configuration
   and of reporting across vendors, and across releases from vendors.

   Network wide configurations are ideally 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.  A working group should consider
   how to standardize the common parts of configuring the new protocol,
   while recognizing the vendors will likely have proprietary aspects of
   their configurations.

   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.  NETCONF
   [RFC4741], for example, differentiates between the "running"
   configuration and "candidate" configurations.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   It is important to enable operators to concentrate on the
   configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual
   devices.  Support for configuration transactions across a number of
   devices would significantly simplify network configuration
   management.  The ability to distribute configurations to multiple
   devices, or modify "candidate configurations on multiple devices, and
   then activate them in a near-simultaneous manner might help.

   Consensus of the 2002 IAB Workshop was that textual configuration
   files should be able to contain international characters.  Human-
   readable strings should utilize UTF-8, and protocol elements should
   be in case insensitive ASCII.

   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.

   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.

   Many protocol specifications include timers that are used as part of
   operation of the protocol.  These timers may need default values
   suggested in the protocol specification and do not need to be
   otherwise configurable.

4.4.1.  Verifying Correct Operation

   An important function that might be provided is a tool set for
   verifying the correct operation of a protocol.  This may be achieved
   to some extent through access to information and data models that
   report the status of the protocol and the state installed on network
   devices.  It may also be valuable to provide techniques for testing
   the effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data
   through the network and observing its behavior.

   Protocol designers should consider how to test the correct end-to-end
   operation of the network, and how to verify the correct data or
   forwarding plane function of each network element.

4.4.2.  Control of Function and Policy

   A working group should consider the configurable items that exist for
   the control of function via the protocol elements described in the
   protocol specification.  For example, Sometimes the protocol requires
   that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure specific
   policy-based behavior by the implementation.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


4.5.  Accounting Management

   A working group should consider whether it would be appropriate to
   collect usage information related to this protocol, and if so, what
   usage information would be appropriate to collect?

   RFC2975 [RFC2975] Introduction to Accounting Management discusses a
   number of issues that arise when monitoring usage of protocols for
   purposes of capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing,
   and billing.  This document also discusses how some commonly used
   protocols are used for these purposes.  These issues should be
   considered when designing a protocol whose usage might need to be
   monitored, or when recommending a protocol to do usage accounting.

4.6.  Performance Management

   Consider information that would be useful when trying to determine
   the performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target
   protocol.

   Consider scaling issues, such as providing information about the
   maximum number of table entries that an implementation supports, the
   current number of instances, and the expected behavior when the
   current instances exceed the capacity of the implementation.

   Consider operational activity, such as the number of message in and
   the messages out, the number of received messages rejected due to
   format problems, the expected behaviors when a malformed message is
   received.

   Consider the expected behaviors for counters - what is a reasonable
   maximum value for expected usage? should they stop counting at the
   maximum value and retain the maximum value, or should they rollover?
   How can users determine if a rollover has occurred, and how can users
   determine if more than one rollover has occurred?

   Consider whether counters should be persistent across reboots of the
   device, or restarts of the management system.

   Consider what events might cause discontinuities in a counter,
   especially those that cause delta calculations to become meaningless.
   How can a user determine that there has been one or more
   discontinuities in the counting?

   Consider whether multiple management applications will share a
   counter; if so, then no one management application should be allowed
   to reset the value to zero since this will impact other applications.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   For performance monitoring, it is important to report counters and
   not gauges as it is important to report the time spent in a state
   rather than the actual state.  In other words, objects that report
   snapshots are of less value for performance monitoring.

4.7.  Security Management

   Protocol designers should consider how to monitor and to manage
   security aspects and vulnerabilities of the new protocol.

   There will be security considerations related to the new protocol.
   To make it possible for operators to be aware of security-related
   events, is it recommended that system logs should record events, such
   as failed logins?  Should a system automatically notify operators of
   every event occurrence, or should an operator-defined threshold
   control when a notification is sent to an operator?

   Should certain statistics be collected about the operation of the new
   protocol that might be useful for detecting attacks, such as the
   receipt of malformed messages, or messages out of order, or messages
   with invalid timestamps?  If such statistics are collected, is it
   important to count them separately for each sender to help identify
   the source of attacks?

   Manageability considerations that are security-oriented might include
   discussion of the security implications when no monitoring is in
   place, the regulatory implications of absence of audit-trail or logs
   in enterprises, exceeding the capacity of logs, and security
   exposures present in chosen / recommended management mechanisms.

   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.

   It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control lists
   across devices.  Working groups should consider information models to
   promote comparisons across devices and across vendors to permit
   checking the consistency of security configurations.

   Working groups should consider how to provide a secure transport,
   authentication, identity, and access control which integrates well
   with existing key and credential management infrastructure.

   Working groups should consider how ACLs (access control lists) are
   maintained and updated.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


5.  Existing Protocols

   [DISCUSS: Section 5 reviews which protocols the IETF has to offer for
   management and, what I really like, the text discusses for which
   applications they were designed or already successfully deployed.  I
   like to perhaps see even stronger guidelines;]

   Working groups should consider existing protocols and data models
   that could be used to provide the management functions identified in
   the previous section, and should consider how using these existing
   protocols and data models might impact network operations.

   In choosing existing protocol solutions to meet the information model
   requirements, it is recommended that the strengths and weaknesses of
   IETF protocols, as document in [RFC3535] be considered, and working
   groups should consider asking for help from the IETF directorates
   knowledgeable in available existing solutions.  This is especially
   true since some of the recommendations from the 2002 IAB workshop
   have become outdated, some have been implemented, and some are being
   realized.

   We want to avoid seeming to impose a solution by putting in place a
   strict terminology - for example implying that a formal data model,
   or even using a management protocol is mandatory.  If a WG considers
   that its technology can be managed solely by using proprietary CLIs,
   and no structured or standardized data model needs to be in place,
   this should be fine, but this is a requirement that needs to be
   explicit in their manageability discussion, so that the WG reaches
   consensus in full awareness that this is how the protocol will need
   to be operated and managed.  Working groups should avoid having
   manageability pushed for a later/never phase of the development of
   the standard.

   Listed here are a number of protocols that have reached Proposed
   Standard status or higher within the IETF.

5.1.  SNMP

   SNMP [RFC3410] is a Full Standard, and is widely used for monitoring
   networks.  Some operators use SNMP for configuration in various
   environments/technologies while others find SNMP an inappropriate
   choice for configuration in their environments.

   SNMP relies on the MIB.  MIB module support is uneven across vendors,
   and even within devices.  The lack of MIB module support for all
   functionality in a device forces operators to use other protocols
   such as a CLI to do configuration of some aspects of their managed
   devices, and it is easier to use one protocol for all configuration



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   than to split the task across multiple protocols.

   SNMP is good at determining operational state of specific
   functionality, but not necessarily for the complete operational state
   of a managed device.

   SNMP is good for statistics gathering for specific functionality.
   The wide-spread use of counters in standard MIB modules permits the
   interoperable comparison of statistics across devices from different
   vendors.  SNMP is often used to poll a device for sysUpTime, which
   serves to check for operational liveness and discontinuity in
   counters.

   SNMP notifications can alert an operator or an application when an
   aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error condition,
   and the contents of a notification can be used to guide subsequent
   SNMP polling to gather additional information about an event.

   SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c lack strong security, and are not recommended by
   the IETF.  SNMPv3 does offer strong security and is recommended by
   the IETF.

5.2.  SYSLOG

   The SYSLOG protocol [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] provides a transport
   to allow a machine to send event notification messages across IP
   networks to event message collectors.  Since each process,
   application and operating system was written somewhat independently,
   there has been little uniformity to the content of SYSLOG messages.
   The protocol is simply designed to transport these event messages.
   No acknowledgement of the receipt is made.  One of the fundamental
   tenets of the SYSLOG protocol and process is its simplicity.  No
   stringent coordination is required between the transmitters and the
   receivers.  Indeed, the transmission of SYSLOG messages may be
   started on a device without a receiver being configured, or even
   actually physically present.  Conversely, many devices will most
   likely be able to receive messages without explicit configuration or
   definitions.  This simplicity has greatly aided the acceptance and
   deployment of SYSLOG.

   The IETF has developed a new Proposed Standard version of the message
   format and protocol that allows the use of any number of transport
   protocols for transmission of SYSLOG messages, including secure
   transports, and allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided in a
   structured way.  The IETF has standardized the new format for SYSLOG
   messages to improve interoperability between compliant
   implementations, and standardized the application of message security
   to SYSLOG messages.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


5.3.  IPFIX

   There are several applications e.g., usage-based accounting, traffic
   profiling, traffic engineering, attack/intrusion detection, QoS
   monitoring, that require flow-based IP traffic measurements.

   IPFIX [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] is a Proposed Standard approach for
   transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network from an
   exporting process to an information collecting process.  IPFIX
   defines a common representation of flow data and a standard means of
   communicating the data over a number of transport protocols.  IPFIX
   is still in process and some aspects have not yet become Proposed
   Standards.

   [TODO: update as needed]

5.4.  NETCONF

   The NETCONF protocol [RFC4741] is a Proposed Standard that defines a
   simple mechanism through which a network device can be managed,
   configuration data information can be retrieved, and new
   configuration data can be uploaded and manipulated.  The protocol
   allows the device to expose a full, formal application programming
   interface (API).  Applications can use this straightforward API to
   send and receive full and partial configuration data sets.

   The NETCONF protocol uses a remote procedure call (RPC) paradigm.  A
   client encodes an RPC in XML and sends it to a server using a secure,
   connection-oriented session.  The server responds with a reply
   encoded in XML.

   A key aspect of NETCONF is that it allows the functionality of the
   management protocol to closely mirror the native command line
   interface of the device.  This reduces implementation costs and
   allows timely access to new features.  In addition, applications can
   access both the syntactic and semantic content of the device's native
   user interface.

   The contents of both the request and the response can be fully
   described in XML DTDs or XML schemas, or both, allowing both parties
   to recognize the syntax constraints imposed on the exchange.  As of
   this writing, no standard has been developed for data content
   specification.

5.5.  COPS-PR

   COPS-PR and the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)
   have been approved as Proposed Standards.  COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for support of policy
   provisioning.  The COPS-PR specification is independent of the type
   of policy being provisioned (QoS, Security, etc.) but focuses on the
   mechanisms and conventions used to communicate provisioned
   information between policy-decision-points (PDPs) and policy
   enforcement points (PEPs).  COPS-PR does not make any assumptions
   about the policy data model being communicated, but describes the
   message formats and objects that carry the modeled policy data.
   Policy data is modeled using Policy Information Base modules (PIB
   modules).

   COPS-PR has not had wide deployment, and operators have stated that
   its use of binary encoding (BER) for management data makes it
   difficult to develop automated scripts for simple configuration
   management tasks in most text-based scripting languages.  In an IAB
   Workshop on Network Management [RFC3535], the consensus of operators
   and protocol developers indicated a lack of interest in PIB modules
   for use with COPS-PR.  As a result, the IESG has not approved any
   policy models (PIB modules) as an IETF standard.

5.6.  RADIUS

   RADIUS [RFC2865], the remote Authentication Dial In User Service, is
   a Draft Standard that describes a protocol for carrying
   authentication, authorization, and configuration information between
   a Network Access Server which desires to authenticate its links and a
   shared Authentication Server.  This protocol is widely implemented
   and used.

5.7.  Diameter

   DIAMETER [RFC3588] is a Proposed Standard that provides an
   Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for
   applications such as network access or IP mobility.  DIAMETER is also
   intended to work in both local Authentication, Authorization &
   Accounting and roaming situations.

   Diameter is designed to resolve a number of known problems with
   RADIUS.  Diameter supports server failover, transmission-level
   security, reliable transport over TCP, agents for proxy and redirect
   and relay, server-initiated messages, auditability, capability
   negotiation, peer discovery and configuration, and roaming support.
   Diameter also provides a larger attribute space than RADIUS.

   RADIUS is widely used within single administrative domains.  Diameter
   features make it especially appropriate for environments where the
   providers of services are in different administrative domains than
   the maintainer (protector) of confidential user information.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


5.8.  EPP

   The Extensible Provision Protocol [RFC4930] is a Draft Standard that
   describes an application layer client-server protocol for the
   provisioning and management of objects stored in a shared central
   repository.  EPP permits multiple service providers to perform object
   provisioning operations using a shared central object repository, and
   addresses the requirements for a generic registry registrar protocol.

5.9.  XCAP

   XCAP [RFC4825] is a Proposed Standard protocol that allows a client
   to read, write, and modify application configuration data stored in
   XML format on a server.

5.10.  Other Protocols

   A command line interface (CLI) might be used to provide initial
   configuration of the target functionality.  Command line interfaces
   are usually proprietary, but working groups could suggest specific
   commands and command parameters that would be useful in configuring
   the new protocol, so implementers could have similarities in their
   proprietary CLI implementations.

   [DISCUSS: Routing and control plane people may prefer NETCONF since
   it is close to CLIs which seem to rule in this space. ]

   [DISCUSS] Other PS-level NM protocols?  SIP NM?

6.  Existing IETF Data Models

   [DISCUSS: JS: The weakest part of the document is IMHO section 6.  It
   is not clear to me what David's intention were here; sometimes he
   gives general advise while at other places he kind of surveys data
   models and such things.  I am also not sure all the stuff listed
   there is actually useful to list; for example, has anybody ever
   deployed the technology which came out of the snmpconf working group?
   So we need to be more selective and probably also organize our
   pointers based on the protocol layer people are working on
   (transmission specific MIB modules are kind of widely used, people
   managing application servers usually do not use much of SNMP; the
   IETF application management MIBs we have produced have not gained
   large deployments as far as I can tell). ]

   [DISCUSS: David: Some MIB modules may not be deployed because few
   people know about them and has never tried them.  Others may have
   been tried and been found to be inadequate.  We have very little
   feedback concerning which ones are useful and which are widely



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   deployed, which have been found useful by operators, and which have
   been found to be junk. ;-) I hesitate to make recommendations that
   people should avoid a MIB unless there is real evidence that is is
   unsuitable for its designed task.  Even then, I hesitate because
   maybe the MIB would be found useful in a different environment that
   is just emerging.  Maybe we need to perform a de-crufting operation
   for data models, similar to that done for protocols a few years ago.
   But I think that would require feedback from LOTS of operators and
   application developers - and these tend to be scarce in the IETF. ]

   The purpose of this section is to inform protocol designers about
   solutions for which components have already been standardized in the
   IETF, so they can reuse existing solutions or use those solutions to
   extract information models that could be applied to new solutions.

   This section discusses management data models that have reached at
   least Proposed Standard status in the IETF.  Because making
   management information available through the MIB has long been the
   IETF-preferred approach for managing the Internet, there are a large
   number of MIB modules available.  Rather than attempt to discuss each
   here, with a discussion of the tables they contain, this section will
   focus on those MIB modules that have reached at least Draft status,
   and some commonly deployed MIB modules.  This is supplemented by an
   appendix that lists additional MIB modules that have reached Proposed
   Standard status.

   [TODO] discuss specific MIB modules, SDEs, XML schemas that are
   designed to solve generic problems.  This might cover things like
   Textual Conventions, RFC3415 Target tables, SYSLOG SDEs defined in
   -protocol-, SYSLOG -sign-, IPFIX IEs, etc.

6.1.  Fault Management

   SNMP notifications and SYSLOG messages can alert an operator when an
   aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error condition,
   and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor.

   The IETF standards-track version of the SYSLOG protocol
   [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] includes a mechanism for defining
   structured data elements (SDEs).  The SYSLOG protocol document
   defines an initial set of SDEs that relate to content time quality,
   content origin, and meta-information about the message, such as
   language.  Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the IETF-
   defined SDEs.

   RFC 3418 [RFC3418], part of STD 62 SNMP, contains objects in the
   system group that are often polled to determine if a device is still
   operating, and sysUpTime can be used to detect if a system has



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   rebooted, and counters have been reinitialized.

   RFC3413 [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMP, includes objects designed for
   managing notifications, including tables for addressing, retry
   parameters, security, lists of targets for notifications, and user
   customization filters.

   An RMON monitor [RFC2819] can be configured to recognize conditions,
   most notably error conditions, and continuously to check for them.
   When one of these conditions occurs, the event may be logged, and
   management stations may be notified in a number of ways.  See further
   discussion of RMON under Performance Management.

   Protocol designers should always build in basic testing features
   (e.g.  ICMP echo, UDP/TCP echo service, NULL RPC calls) that can be
   used to test for liveness, with an option to enable and disable them.

   The ALARM MIB in RFC 3877 and the Alarm Reporting Control MIB in RFC
   3878 specify mechanisms for expressing state transition models for
   persistent problem states.  There is also a mechanism specified to
   correlate a notification with subsequent state transition
   notifications about the same entity/object.

   Other MIB modules that may be applied to Fault Management include:

      NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB in RFC 3014

      ENTITY-STATE-MIB in RFC 4268

      ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB in RFC 4268

6.2.  Configuration Management

   It is expected that standard XML-based data models will be developed
   for use with NETCONF, and working groups might identify specific
   NETCONF data models that would be applicable to the new protocol.  At
   the time of this writing, no such standard data models exist.

   RFC3159 [RFC3159] discusses the Structure of Policy Provisioning
   Information, an extension to the SMI standard for purposes of policy-
   based provisioning, for use with the COPS-PR protocol defined in
   RFC3084 [RFC3084].  RFC3317 [RFC3317] defines a DiffServ QoS PIB.  At
   the time of this writing, there are no standards-track PIBs.  During
   the IAB Workshop on Network Management, the workshop had rough
   consensus from the protocol developers that the IETF should not spend
   resources on SPPI PIB definitions, and the operators had rough
   consensus that they do not care about SPPI PIBs.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   For monitoring network configuration, such as physical and logical
   network topologies, existing MIB modules already exist that provide
   some of the desired capabilities.  New MIB modules might be developed
   for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify
   the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event
   reporting thresholds, target addresses, and so on.

   RFC 3418 [RFC3418], part of STD 62 SNMPv3, contains objects in the
   system group that are often polled to determine if a device is still
   operating, and sysUpTime can be used to detect if a system has
   rebooted and caused potential discontinuity in counters.  Other
   objects in the system MIB are useful for identifying the type of
   device, the location of the device, the person responsible for the
   device, etc.

   RFC3413 [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMPv3, includes objects designed
   for configuring notification destinations, and for configuring proxy-
   forwarding SNMP agents, which can be used to forward messages through
   firewalls and NAT devices.

   Draft Standard RFC2863 [RFC2863], the Interfaces MIB is used for
   managing Network Interfaces.  This includes the 'interfaces' group of
   MIB-II and discusses the experience gained from the definition of
   numerous media-specific MIB modules for use in conjunction with the
   'interfaces' group for managing various sub-layers beneath the
   internetwork-layer.

   Proposed Standard RFC4133 [RFC4133] the Entity MIB is used for
   managing multiple logical and physical entities managed by a single
   SNMP agent.  This module provides a useful mechanism for identifying
   the entities comprising a system.  There are also event notifications
   defined for configuration changes that may be useful to management
   applications.

   Informational RFC3512 [RFC3512] discusses using SNMP to do
   configuration management, including policy-based configuration
   management.

   Proposed Standard RFC4011 [RFC4011] defines objects that enable
   policy-based monitoring and management of SNMP infrastructures, a
   scripting language, and a script execution environment.

6.3.  Accounting Management

   RFC2975 discusses how RADIUS, TACACS+, and SNMP might be used for
   these purposes.  While this discussion is now dated, many of the
   issues remain relevant, and new protocols might be better to address
   those issues.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   RADIUS [RFC2865] or DIAMETER [RFC3588] accounting might be collected
   for services, and working groups might document some of the RADIUS/
   DIAMETER attributes that could be used.

   The IPFIX protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] can collect information
   related to IP flows, and existing Information Elements (IEs) may be
   appropriate to report flows of the new protocol.  New IPFIX
   Information Elements might be useful for collecting flow information
   useful only in consideration of the new protocol.  As of this
   writing, no IEs have reached Proposed Standard status yet, but a base
   set of IEs has been submitted to IESG for advancement.  These include
   IEs for Identifying the scope of reporting, Metering and Export
   Process configuration, IP and Transport and Sub-IP header fields,
   Packet and Flow properties, timestamps, and counters.

   RFC3159 discusses the Proposed Standard Structure of Policy
   Provisioning Information (SPPI), an extension to the SMI standard for
   purposes of policy-based provisioning, for use with the COPS-PR
   protocol defined in RFC3084.  Informational RFC3317 defines a
   DiffServ QoS PIB, and Informational RFC3571 defines policy classes
   for monitoring and reporting policy usage feedback, as well as policy
   classes for controlling reporting intervals, suspension, resumption
   and solicitation.  At the time of this writing, there are no
   standards-track PIBs During the IAB Workshop on Network Management,
   the workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers that
   the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions, and the
   operators had rough consensus that they do not care about SPPI PIBs.

6.4.  Performance Management

   Working groups should consider how performance can be monitored for
   the new protocol.

   MIB modules typically contain counters to determine the frequency and
   rate of an occurrence.

   RFC2819, STD 59 RMON, defines objects for managing remote network
   monitoring devices.  An organization may employ many remote
   management probes, one per network segment, to manage its internet.
   These devices may be used for a network management service provider
   to access a client network, often geographically remote.  Most of the
   objects in the RMON MIB module are suitable for the management of any
   type of network, and there are some which are specific to managing
   Ethernet networks.

   RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to
   collect statistics continuously, even when communication with the
   management station may not be possible or efficient.  The alarm group



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the probe
   and compares them to previously configured thresholds.  If the
   monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated.

   The RMON host group discovers hosts on the network by keeping a list
   of source and destination MAC Addresses seen in good packets
   promiscuously received from the network, and contains statistics
   associated with each host.  The hostTopN group is used to prepare
   reports that describe the hosts that top a list ordered by one of
   their statistics.  The available statistics are samples of one of
   their base statistics over an interval specified by the management
   station.  Thus, these statistics are rate based.  The management
   station also selects how many such hosts are reported.

   The RMON matrix group stores statistics for conversations between
   sets of two addresses.  The filter group allows packets to be matched
   by a filter equation.  These matched packets form a data stream that
   may be captured or may generate events.  The Packet Capture group
   allows packets to be captured after they flow through a channel.  The
   event group controls the generation and notification of events from
   this device.

   The RMON-2 MIB [RFC4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up
   to the application layer.  The SMON MIB [RFC2613] extends RMON by
   providing RMON analysis for switched networks.  RAQMON [RFC4710]
   describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service Monitoring.

   DISMAN-EVENT-MIB in RFC 2981 and DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB in RFC 2982
   provide a superset of the capabilities of the RMON alarm and event
   groups.  These modules provide mechanisms for thresholding and
   reporting anomalous events to management applications.

   SIP Package for Voice Quality Reporting
   [I-D.ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary] defines a SIP event package that
   enables the collection and reporting of metrics that measure the
   quality for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions.

   The IPPM WG has defined metrics for accurately measuring and
   reporting the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data
   delivery services.  The metrics include connectivity, one-way delay
   and loss, round-trip delay and loss, delay variation, loss patterns,
   packet reordering, bulk transport capacity, and link bandwidth
   capacity

   The Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) has defined recommendations
   for the measurement of the performance characteristics of various
   internetworking technologies in a laboratory environment, including
   the systems or services that are built from these technologies.  Each



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   recommendation describes the class of equipment, system, or service
   being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that are
   pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid
   in the description of those characteristics; specify the
   methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present
   the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of
   benchmarking results.

6.5.  Security Management

   Working groups should consider existing data models that would be
   relevant to monitoring and managing the security of the new protocol.

   IPsec Security Policy IPsec Action MIB
   [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib] defines a MIB module for
   configuration of an IPsec action within the IPsec security policy
   database (SPD).  [TODO: this is not yet a PS, and has dependencies on
   a dead document?]

   IPsec Security Policy IKE Action MIB [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib]
   defines a MIB module for configuration of an Internet Key Exchange
   (IKE) [RFC4306] action within the IPsec security policy database
   (SPD).  [TODO: this is not yet a PS, and has dependencies on a dead
   document?]

   [DISCUSS: why are security protocols like TLS and SSH not required to
   be manageable? e.g., no MIB modules exist for these protocols.]

   Standard SNMP notifications or SYSLOG messages
   [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] might already exist, or can be defined, to
   alert operators to the conditions identified in the security
   considerations for the new protocol.

   An analysis of existing counters might help operators recognize the
   conditions identified in the security considerations for the new
   protocol before they can impact the network.

   RADIUS and DIAMETER can provide authentication and authorization.  A
   working group should consider which attributes would be appropriate
   for their protocol.

   Different protocols use different assumptions about message security
   and data access controls.  A working group that recommends using
   different protocols should consider how security will be applied in a
   balanced manner across multiple management interfaces.  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.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   Working groups should consider both data-oriented and task-oriented
   access control.

7.  Documentation Guidelines

   The purpose of this document is to provide guidance about what to
   consider when thinking about the management and deployment of a new
   protocol, and to provide guidance about documenting the
   considerations should a working group choose to do so.  The following
   guidelines are designed to help writers provide a reasonably
   consistent format to such documentation.  Separate manageability and
   operational considerations sections are desirable in many cases, but
   their structure and location is a decision that can be made from case
   to case.

   Making a Management Considerations section a mandatory publication
   requirement is the responsibility of the IESG, or specific area
   directors, or working groups, and this document avoids recommending
   any mandatory publication requirements.  For a complex protocol, a
   completely separate draft on operations and management might be
   appropriate, or even a completely separate WG.

   This document is focused on what to think about, and how to document
   the considerations of the working group.

7.1.  Recommended Discussions

   A Manageability Considerations section should include discussion of
   the management and operations topics raised in this document, and
   when one or more of these topics is not relevant, it would be useful
   to contain a simple statement explaining why the topic is not
   relevant for the new protocol.  Of course, additional relevant topics
   should be included as well.

7.2.  Null Manageability Considerations Sections

   A working group may seriously consider the manageability requirements
   of a new protocol, and determine that there are no manageability
   issues related to the new protocol.  It would be helpful to those who
   may update or write extensions to the protocol in the future or to
   those deploying the new protocol to know the thinking of the working
   regarding the manageability of the protocol at the time of its
   design.

   If there are no new manageability or deployment considerations, it is
   recommended that a Manageability Considerations section contain a
   simple statement such as "There are no new manageability requirements
   introduced by this document," and a brief explanation of why that is



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   the case.  The presence of such a Manageability Considerations
   section would indicate to the reader that due consideration has been
   given to manageability and operations.

   In the case where the new protocol is an extension, and the base
   protocol discusses all the relevant operational and manageability
   considerations, it would be helpful to point out the considerations
   section in the base document.

7.3.  Placement of Operations and Manageability Considerations Sections

   If a working group develops a Manageability Considerations section
   for a new protocol, it is recommended that the section be placed
   immediately before the Security Considerations section.  Reviewers
   interested in such sections could find it easily, and this placement
   could simplify the development of tools to detect the presence of
   such a section.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new codepoints or name spaces
   for registration with IANA.  Note to RFC Editor: this section may be
   removed on publication as an RFC.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document is informational and provides guidelines for
   considering manageability and operations.  It introduces no new
   security concerns.

10.  Acknowledgements

   This document started from an earlier document edited by Adrian
   Farrel, which itself was based on work exploring the need for
   Manageability Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced
   within the Routing Area of the IETF.  That earlier work was produced
   by Avri Doria, Loa Andersson, and Adrian Farrel, with valuable
   feedback provided by Pekka Savola and Bert Wijnen.

   Some of the discussion about designing for manageability came from
   private discussions between Dan Romascanu, Bert Wijnen, Juergen
   Schoenwaelder, Andy Bierman, and David Harrington.

11.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]        Claise, B., "Specification of the
                                    IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange of
                                    IP Traffic Flow  Information",



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


                                    draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26 (work
                                    in progress), September 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib]    Hardaker, W., "IPsec Security Policy
                                    IKE Action MIB",
                                    draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-02
                                    (work in progress), November 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib]  Hardaker, W., "IPsec Security Policy
                                    IPsec Action MIB",
                                    draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-02
                                    (work in progress), November 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary]  Pendleton, A., "Session Initiation
                                    Protocol Package for Voice Quality
                                    Reporting Event",
                                    draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary-02
                                    (work in progress), May 2007.

   [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol]       Gerhards, R., "The syslog Protocol",
                                    draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23 (work
                                    in progress), September 2007.

   [RFC1052]                        Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for
                                    the development of Internet network
                                    management standards", RFC 1052,
                                    April 1988.

   [RFC2119]                        Bradner, S., "Key words for use in
                                    RFCs to Indicate Requirement
                                    Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                                    March 1997.

   [RFC2578]                        McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D.,
                                    Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed.,
                                    "Structure of Management Information
                                    Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58,
                                    RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2613]                        Waterman, R., Lahaye, B., Romascanu,
                                    D., and S. Waldbusser, "Remote
                                    Network Monitoring MIB Extensions
                                    for Switched Networks Version 1.0",
                                    RFC 2613, June 1999.

   [RFC2819]                        Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network
                                    Monitoring Management Information
                                    Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


   [RFC2863]                        McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz,
                                    "The Interfaces Group MIB",
                                    RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC2865]                        Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A.,
                                    and W. Simpson, "Remote
                                    Authentication Dial In User Service
                                    (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC2975]                        Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D.
                                    Harrington, "Introduction to
                                    Accounting Management", RFC 2975,
                                    October 2000.

   [RFC3060]                        Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner,
                                    J., and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core
                                    Information Model -- Version 1
                                    Specification", RFC 3060,
                                    February 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC3139]                        Sanchez, L., McCloghrie, K., and J.
                                    Saperia, "Requirements for
                                    Configuration Management of IP-based
                                    Networks", RFC 3139, June 2001.

   [RFC3159]                        McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson,
                                    J., Chan, K., Hahn, S., Sahita, R.,
                                    Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer,
                                    "Structure of Policy Provisioning
                                    Information (SPPI)", RFC 3159,
                                    August 2001.

   [RFC3290]                        Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D.,
                                    and A. Smith, "An Informal
                                    Management Model for Diffserv
                                    Routers", RFC 3290, May 2002.

   [RFC3317]                        Chan, K., Sahita, R., Hahn, S., and
                                    K. McCloghrie, "Differentiated
                                    Services Quality of Service Policy
                                    Information Base", RFC 3317,



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


                                    March 2003.

   [RFC3410]                        Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D.,
                                    and B. Stewart, "Introduction and
                                    Applicability Statements for
                                    Internet-Standard Management
                                    Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.

   [RFC3413]                        Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart,
                                    "Simple Network Management Protocol
                                    (SNMP) Applications", STD 62,
                                    RFC 3413, December 2002.

   [RFC3418]                        Presuhn, R., "Management Information
                                    Base (MIB) for the Simple Network
                                    Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
                                    RFC 3418, December 2002.

   [RFC3444]                        Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On
                                    the Difference between Information
                                    Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
                                    January 2003.

   [RFC3460]                        Moore, B., "Policy Core Information
                                    Model (PCIM) Extensions", RFC 3460,
                                    January 2003.

   [RFC3512]                        MacFaden, M., Partain, D., Saperia,
                                    J., and W. Tackabury, "Configuring
                                    Networks and Devices with Simple
                                    Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
                                    RFC 3512, April 2003.

   [RFC3535]                        Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the
                                    2002 IAB Network Management
                                    Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.

   [RFC3585]                        Jason, J., Rafalow, L., and E.
                                    Vyncke, "IPsec Configuration Policy
                                    Information Model", RFC 3585,
                                    August 2003.

   [RFC3588]                        Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman,
                                    E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
                                    "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
                                    September 2003.

   [RFC3644]                        Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner,



Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


                                    J., Cohen, R., and B. Moore, "Policy
                                    Quality of Service (QoS) Information
                                    Model", RFC 3644, November 2003.

   [RFC3670]                        Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner,
                                    J., Westerinen, A., and W. Weiss,
                                    "Information Model for Describing
                                    Network Device QoS Datapath
                                    Mechanisms", RFC 3670, January 2004.

   [RFC3805]                        Bergman, R., Lewis, H., and I.
                                    McDonald, "Printer MIB v2",
                                    RFC 3805, June 2004.

   [RFC4011]                        Waldbusser, S., Saperia, J., and T.
                                    Hongal, "Policy Based Management
                                    MIB", RFC 4011, March 2005.

   [RFC4133]                        Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie,
                                    "Entity MIB (Version 3)", RFC 4133,
                                    August 2005.

   [RFC4306]                        Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange
                                    (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306,
                                    December 2005.

   [RFC4502]                        Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network
                                    Monitoring Management Information
                                    Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.

   [RFC4710]                        Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E.
                                    Golovinsky, "Real-time Application
                                    Quality-of-Service Monitoring
                                    (RAQMON) Framework", RFC 4710,
                                    October 2006.

   [RFC4741]                        Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration
                                    Protocol", RFC 4741, December 2006.

   [RFC4825]                        Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible
                                    Markup Language (XML) Configuration
                                    Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825,
                                    May 2007.

   [RFC4930]                        Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible
                                    Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
                                    RFC 4930, May 2007.




Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


Appendix A.  Operations and Management Checklist

   This appendix provides a quick summary of issues to consider.

      are configuration parameters clearly identified?

      are configuration parameters normalized?

      does each configuration parameter have a reasonable default value?

      is protocol state information exposed to the user?  How?

      is protocol performance information exposed to the user?  How?

      are significant state transitions logged?

Appendix B.  Additional MIB Modules on the Standards Track

Appendix C.  Change Log

   Changes from harrington-01 to opsawg-00

      added text regarding operational models to be managed.

      Added checklist appendix (to be filled in after consensus is
      reached on main text )

   Changes from harrington-00 to harrington-01

      modified unclear text in "Design for Operations and Management"

      Expanded discussion of counters

      Removed some redundant text

      Added ACLs to Security Management

      Expanded discussion of the status of COPS-PR, SPPI, and PIBs.

      Expanded comparison of RADIUS and Diameter.

      Added placeholders for EPP and XCAP protocols.

      Added Change Log and Open Issues







Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


Author's Address

   David Harrington
   Huawei Technologies USA
   1700 Alma Dr, Suite 100
   Plano, TX  75075
   USA

   Phone: +1 603 436 8634
   Fax:
   EMail: dharrington@huawei.com
   URI:







































Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft           Ops and Mgmt Guidelines          September 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Harrington               Expires March 15, 2008                [Page 37]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/