Modelling Behaviour and Distribution for the Management of Next Generation Networks

  • C. Fahy
  • M. Ponce de Leon
  • S. van der Meer
  • R. Marin
  • J. Vivero
  • J. Serrat
  • N. Georgalas
  • P. Leitner
  • S. Collins
  • B. Baesjou
Part of the Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing book series (WSSAT)


Current network management systems have been impeded by a scarcity of open standards for interoperable management solutions. Information models have made progress in promoting interoperability of traditional “centralised” networks but have still to significantly address the proliferation of next generation networks such as autonomic networks. Such networks impose challenges which include distributed self-control and self-management. The goal of the Madeira project was to utilise novel technologies and methodologies, based on an underlying P2P paradigm, for a logically meshed, distributed Network Management System (NMS) that facilitates dynamic behaviour of transient network elements. In this paper, we describe a solution for a meta-model that attempts to capture the key concepts behind the task of network management of a mesh network. A case-study focusing on the fault management of such a network will be presented with the purpose of verifying the applicability of such a meta-model.


meta-model autonomic networks management distribution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    E. Pitoura, G. Samaras, G. Samaras, Data Management for Mobile Computing. (1997).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Strassner, J. Kephart, Autonomic Systems and Networks: Theory and Practice. NOMS Tutorial, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Yemini, S. daSilva, Towards programmable networks. IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management (DSOM 1996).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    AG. Ganek, TA. Corbi, The dawning of the autonomic computing era. IBM Systems Journal, 42:1, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Lyytinen, G. Rose, R. Welke, The Brave New World of development in the inter-network computing architecture (InterNCA): or how distributed computing platforms will change systems development. Information Systems Journal, 8:3, 241–253.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Risson, T. Moors, Survey of Research towards Robust Peer-to-Peer Networks: Search Methods. Technical report UNSW-EE-P2P-1-1, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Zach, D. Parker, J. Nielsen, C. Fahy, R. Carroll, E. Lehtihet, N. Georgalas, R. Marin, J. Serrat, Towards a framework for network management applications based on peer-to-peer paradigms. NOMS 2006.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. Roussopoulos, M. Baker, et al., 2 P2P or Not 2P2P? The 3’rd International Workshop on Peer to Peer systems, San Diego, USA Feb 26–27, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Shirky, What is P2P... and what isn’t. Scholar
  10. [10]
    European Celtic initiative. Scholar
  11. [11]
    Madeira project. Scholar
  12. [12]
    IETF, Configuring Networks and Devices with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Network Working Group, 2003 RFC 3512.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    ITU-T, Common Management Information Protocol Specification. ITU-T Recommendations X.711, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    DMTF, Desktop Management Interface Specification. DSP0005, DMTF, Version 2.0.1s, January 10, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    DMTF, WBEM Discovery Using Service Location Protocol. DSP0205, DMTF, Version 1.0.0, January 27, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    DMTF, WBEM URI Mapping Specification. DSP0207, DMTF, Version 1.0.0l, January 25, 2006.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    OMG, Meta Object Facility(MOF) Core Specification. Version 2.0, OMG, January 2006.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    TMF, NGOSS Architecture Technology Neutral Specification Metamodel. Annex TMF053D, Version 1.0, February 2003.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    N. Georgalas, The Model of Object Primitives (MOP). Succeeding With Object Databases: A Practical Look At Today’s Implementation With Java and Xml, October 2000, 464 pages, ISBN 0-471-38384-8.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. van der Meer, Middleware and Application Management Architecture. PhD Thesis, Berlin, Germany, September 25, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    K. Raymond, Reference Model of Open Distributed Processing (RM-ODP): Introduction. Proc. of the International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, ICODP’95, Brisbane, Australia, 20–24 February, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    TINA-C, Computational Modeling Concepts. TINAC Deliverable, TINA 1.0, Version 3.2, Archiving Label TP_HC.012_3.2_96, TINAC, May 17, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    OMG, The Common Object Request Broker: Core Specification. Version 3.0.3, OMG, March 2004.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    DMTF, Common Information Model (CIM) Specification. DMTF, Version 2.12.0, April, 2006.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    OMG, MDA Guide. DMTF, Version 2.12.0, April, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. Carroll, C. Fahy, E. Lehtihet, S. van der Meer, N. Georgalas, D. Cleary, Applying the P2P paradigm to mamagement of large-scale distributed networks using a Model Driven Approach. NOMS 2006.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    T. Clark, A. Evans, P. Sammut, J. Williams, Language Driven Development and MDA. Xactium Limited, Scholar
  28. [28]
    ITU-T Recommendation X.733 Information Technology Open Systems Interconnection Systems Management: Alarm Reporting Function. ITU-T.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Leitner M., Leitner Ph., Zach M., Fahy, C., Collins S Fault Management based on peer-to-peer paradigms: A case study report from the CELTIC project Madeira. Integrated Management 2007, Munich, April 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Fahy
    • 1
  • M. Ponce de Leon
    • 1
  • S. van der Meer
    • 1
  • R. Marin
    • 2
  • J. Vivero
    • 2
  • J. Serrat
    • 2
  • N. Georgalas
    • 3
  • P. Leitner
    • 4
  • S. Collins
    • 5
  • B. Baesjou
    • 6
  1. 1.Waterford Institute of TechnologyWaterfordIreland
  2. 2.Network Management GroupUniversitat Politcnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.BT GroupIpswichUK
  4. 4.PSE - Program and System EngineeringSiemens AG AustriaViennaAustria
  5. 5.Ericsson R & D IrelandAthloneIreland
  6. 6.Telefónica I & DSpain

Personalised recommendations