Professional Documents
Culture Documents
C35-99 B32
by
J. Luque 1, F. Gonzalo 2, J. I. Escudero 1, A. Carrasco1
1
Universidad de Sevilla
2
Endesa Ingeniera de Telecomunicaciones (Enditel)
(Spain)
1. INTRODUCTION
The OSI (Open System Interconnection) model has been a successful framework for
protocol architecture in some environments. Academically oriented systems or high-end
communication networks had taken advantage of its wide goals and generous features. When
network management arose as a major problem, the natural official answer was to build the
Telecommunication Management Network (TMN), an architecture based on the existing OSI
model. TMN systems have the same aim of universality as OSI systems. Therefore, both of them
are complete but at the same time heavy, complex and expensive solutions. In addition, OSI and
TMN approaches have to be approved by international standardization bodies (ISO and ITU-T),
which implies time-consuming efforts -a drawback in todays rapidly changing communications
world.
On the other hand, to cope with the OSI drawbacks, the TCP-IP and related protocols have
become a de facto standard for many applications. Most computer networks, both in academic or
industrial environments are based on TCP-IP. Internet is also a TCP-IP based network. This
model uses quite simple but useful protocols to communicate computers. It does not provide full
support for every possible feature but its lack of functionality is far overcome by its availability
and almost universal extent. According to this philosophy, in the Internet-like networks a much
easier and informal approach has been adopted. Its kernel is the SNMP (Simple Network
Management Protocol), which is widely supported and allows for the easy management of
multivendor networks.
* Dpt. Tecnologa Electrnica. Facultad de Informtica. Av. Reina Mercedes, s/n. 41018-Sevilla. Spain.
Fax: +34 95 4552764 e-mail: jluque@cica.es
This paper will address and compare the main characteristics of TMN and SNMP based
systems. We will try to discuss the reasons for choosing either of the two systems, considering not
just technical performance but also taking into account economic and commercial considerations.
Finally, in the much more specific area of telecommunication networks, the integrated
network management problem emerges as well. To cope with this situation, ITU-T approves the
TMN model [3] benefiting from most of the concepts and standards defined by the ISO model.
This results in a very powerful model, although it has the same heaviness and slowness of the ISO
model. In the next paragraphs, each model will be described.
3. OSI MODEL
The ISO network management model is based on three basic elements: the structure of
management information, the protocols and the functions. The structure of management information
[4] is based on an object-oriented model where every sort of device is modeled by means of an
object class including its associated attributes, notifications and actions. The objects are
organized according to a tree of hierarchical dependency while the object classes are arranged
following an inheritance tree. The set of managed objects makes up the MIB (Management
Information Base). A standard language, called GDMO (Guidelines for the Definition of Managed
Objects) [5] has also been defined, allowing a non-ambiguous definition of every object class
characteristic. The resulting information model has a great describing capacity and easily permits
to deal with every particular situation which can arise when managing actual networks.
4. TMN MODEL
The ITU-T management model, formally called TMN (Telecommunication Management
Network), is highly based on the OSI model which leads to a structure relying on three basic
elements (structure of management information, protocols and functions). Additionally, the TMN
model takes advantage of and adopts many ISO management standards. Using this ISO kernel, the
TMN model expands in two directions: on the one hand it widens the concepts and functions in
order to fit the telecommunication networks features; and, on the other side, it establishes a set of
specific standards for each particular technology. So, for instance, there are specific standards to
manage technologies such as SDH, ISDN, ATM, etc.
ISO ITU-T
General Framework General
7498-4 Framework
10040 M.30xx
Technology
dependent
management
Figure 4
The TMN management information follows the patterns set in the ISO model but they are
expanded to offer a catalogue of object classes adapted to the specific modeling needs found in
the telecommunication network elements [7]. Particularly relevant in this structure of management
information are those object classes related to the topological specification of the network. On the
other hand, the standardized
protocols, specified as a part of the Security
Q.3 interface [8], use the layered ISO Performance
structure where the CMIP plays the Configuration
main role as the management Accounting
protocol. Fault
5. INTERNET MODEL
On the other hand, the network management protocol follows the layered structure of
Internet (more limited than the OSI model of TMN) using the SNMP (Simple Network
Management Protocol) as the management protocol, usually on top of a stack of TCP/IP protocols.
The SNMP protocol, designed with the aim of simplicity, is able to manage many features of many
devices, but it has severe limitations for managing complex objects or a structure of objects.
The limitations of the Internet model are, at the same time, an advantage and a drawback.
On the one hand it is clear that it limits the capabilities of managing the network. But, on the other
hand, its simple design permits an easy development of agents and managers, functions and
management platforms. This situation has led to a fast commercial expansion. There are many
devices supporting the SNMP management protocol, while only the high-end systems support the
CMIP standard. Additionally, many vendors provide management platforms based on SNMP, with
similar functions and performances and at very attractive prices. The greater simplicity of the
Internet model, its greater market share, and the greater number of competitors make a situation of
lower prices possible.
On the other hand, TMN management platforms support many functionalities and can
describe and manage almost every particular aspect of a telecommunications network. However,
the number of communication devices which are able to interface in a Q.3 way is even lower. For
this reason, the prices of TMN management systems are remarkably higher than their SNMP
equivalents, where a 10 to 1 price ratio, or higher, is not uncommon.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper three different models for network management and its main features have
been shown. From our point of view, in small networks with limited management functions,
SNMP-based management systems are the best solution considering the balance between price
and performance. Nevertheless, in middle and large size networks, and when these networks
require a wide range of management functions, using SNMP-based systems can be a hindrance for
the present and a risk for the future. In every particular case we must consider the convenience of
relying on a TMN-based management system, which can guarantee a full functionality and a
proper system scalability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper has been co-funded by the Comisin Interministerial de Ciencia
y Tecnologa (CICYT) and the European Commission in the framework of the Fondo Europeo de
Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) through a project bearing reference number 1FD97-0595.
REFERENCES