Formal Methods for Modeling, Refining and Verifying Autonomic Components of Computer Networks

  • Arun Prakash
  • Zoltán Theisz
  • Ranganai Chaparadza
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7050)


The domain of autonomic and nature-inspired networking comes with its own set of design challenges and requirements for its architectures. This demands a tailored solution to model and design its components rather than a generic approach. In this paper, we provide a hybrid methodology consisting of formal methods to design, refine and verify the entities of autonomic networks. We focus our discussions on the methods for meta-modeling, structural modeling and behavior modeling and design of existing protocols and newly introduced autonomic components, that autonomically manage and adapt the behaviour of protocols to changing policy and network conditions. A case study, based on the recently introduced Hierarchical Autonomic Management and Control Architectural Framework called GANA, is used for highlighting the practical benefits and design choices available to modelers and autonomic components designers. The results of our case study are analyzed to explain the trade offs that future designers would be forced to make in order to achieve their design objectives for an autonomic network. A tool-chain to realize the methodology is also briefly discussed.


Autonomics GANA Meta-Model Model-driven Methodology Formal Methods Hierarchical Controllers Design Protocol behavior modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chaparadza, R.: Requirements for a Generic Autonomic Network Architecture (GANA), suitable for Standardizable Autonomic Behavior Specifications for Diverse Networking Environments. International Engineering Consortium (IEC), Annual Review of Communications, 61 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chaparadza, R., Papavassiliou, S., Kastrinogiannis, T., Vigoureux, M., Dotaro, E., Davy, A., Quinn, K., Wódczak, M., Toth, A., Liakopoulos, A., Wilson, M.: Creating a viable Evolution Path towards Self-Managing Future Internet via a Standardizable Reference Model for Autonomic Network Engineering. In: Towards the Future Internet - A European Research Perspective, pp. 313–324. IOS Press (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rétvári, G., Németh, F., Chaparadza, R., Szabó, R.: OSPF for Implementing Self-adaptive Routing in Autonomic Networks: A Case Study. In: Strassner, J.C., Ghamri-Doudane, Y.M. (eds.) MACE 2009. LNCS, vol. 5844, pp. 72–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, J.: Understand the Autonomic Manager Concept (October 2004),
  5. 5.
    Greenberg, A., Hjalmtysson, G., Maltz, D.A., Myers, A., Rexford, J., Xie, G., Yan, H., Zhan, J., Zhang, H.: A Clean Slate 4D Approach to Network Control and Management. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35(5), 41–54 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballani, H., Francis, P.: CONMan: A Step Towards Network Manageability. In: SIGCOMM 2007: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, pp. 205–216. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hellerstein, J.L., Diao, Y., Parekh, S., Tilbury, D.M.: Feedback Control of Computing Systems. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ogata, K.: Modern Control Engineering. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prakash, A., Chaparadza, R., Theisz, Z.: Requirements of a Model-Driven Methodology and Tool-Chain for the Design and Verification of Hierarchical Controllers of an Autonomic Network. In: Third International Conference on Communication Theory, Reliability, and Quality of Service (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tcholtchev, N., Chaparadza, R., Prakash, A.: Addressing Stability of Control-Loops in the Context of the GANA Architecture: Synchronization of Actions and Policies. In: Spyropoulos, T., Hummel, K.A. (eds.) IWSOS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5918, pp. 262–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mortier, R., Kiciman, E.: Autonomic Network Management: Some Pragmatic Considerations. In: INM 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Network Management, pp. 89–93. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kastrinogiannis, T., Tcholtchev, N., Prakash, A., Chaparadza, R., Kaldanis, V., Coskun, H., Papavassiliou, S.: Addressing stability in future autonomic networking. In: Pentikousis, K., Agüero, R., García-Arranz, M., Papavassiliou, S. (eds.) MONAMI 2010. LNICST, vol. 68, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Series Z: Languages and General Software Aspects for Telecommunication Systems - Formal description techniques (FDT) - Specification and Description Language (SDL),
  14. 14.
    Lollini, P., Giandomenico, F.D., Bondavalli, A.: A Modeling Methodology for Hierarchical Control Systems and its Application. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 10(0104-6500), 57–69 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MDA Specifications (2009),
  16. 16.
    Unified Modeling Language (2010),
  17. 17.
    Green, D., DiCaterino, A.: A Survey of System Development Process Models. Tech. rep., Center for Technology in Government (February 1998),
  18. 18.
    Sztipanovits, J., Karsai, G., Franke, H.: Model-Integrated Program Synthesis Environment. In: IEEE International Conference on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, p. 348 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lédeczi, A., Bakay, A., Maróti, M., Völgyesi, P., Nordstrom, G., Sprinkle, J., Karsai, G.: Composing Domain-Specific Design Environments. Computer 34(11), 44–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bakshi, A., Prasanna, V.K., Ledeczi, A.: MILAN: A Model Based Integrated Simulation Framework for Design of Embedded Systems. In: LCTES 2001: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Languages, Compilers and Tools for Embedded Systems, pp. 82–93. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lédeczi, Á., Bakay, Á., Maróti, M.: Model-Integrated Embedded Systems. In: Robertson, P., Shrobe, H.E., Laddaga, R. (eds.) IWSAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1936, pp. 99–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Institute for Software Integrated Systems at Vanderbilt University: Generic Modelling Environments, version 7,
  23. 23.
    Chaparadza, R., Prakash, A., Theisz, Z., Zafeiropoulos, A., Jaekel, C., Zahemszky, A., Rubio, C.M., Jokikyyny, T.: Model-driven Methodology and associated Tool-Chain for design for Stability in GANA, Project Deliverable - D1.8b (June 2011),
  24. 24.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, 2nd corrected printing edn. Basic Concepts, vol. 1, Springer, Heidelberg (1997) ISBN: 3-540-60943-1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Practical Use, vol. 3, Springer, Heidelberg (1997) ISBN: 3-540-62867-3Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jensen, K.: Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts, Analysis Methods and Practical Use. In: Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science, 2nd corrected printing edn., vol. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (1997) ISBN: 3-540-58276-2Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jensen, K., Rozenberg, G. (eds.): High-level Petri Nets: Theory and Application. Springer, London (1991) ISBN: 3-540-54125 X or 0-387-54125 XzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Unbehauen, H.: System Identification Methods using Parameter Estimation - A Survey. Annual Review in Automatic Programming 12(Part 1), 69–81 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walsh, W.E., Tesauro, G., Kephart, J.O., Das, R.: Utility Functions in Autonomic Systems. In: ICAC 2004: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomic Computing, pp. 70–77. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rétvári, G., Németh, F., Prakash, A., Chaparadza, R., Hokelek, I., Fecko, M., Wódczak, M., Vidalenc, B.: A Guideline for Realizing the Vision of Autonomic Networking: Implementing Self-Adaptive Routing on top of OSPF. In: Formal and Practical Aspects of Autonomic Computing and Networking: Specification, Development and Verification. IGI Publishing (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J.: OSPF for IPv6. RFC 2740 (Proposed Standard), obsoleted by RFC 5340 (December 1999),
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    MATLAB and Simulink for Technical Computing,
  34. 34.
    Eaton, J.W.: GNU Octave Manual. Network Theory Limited (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aldazabal, A., Baily, T., Nanclares, F., Sadovykh, A., Hein, C., Ritter, T.: Automated Model Driven Development Process. In: ECMDA workshop on Model Driven Tool and Process Integration. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart (2008) ISBN: 978-3-8167-7645-1Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hein, C., Ritter, T., Wagner, M.: Model-Driven Tool Integration with ModelBus. In: FTMDD 2009: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Future Trends of Model-Driven Development (2009),
  37. 37.
    Batori, G., Theisz, Z., Asztalos, D.: Domain Specific Modeling Methodology for Reconfigurable Networked Systems. In: Engels, G., Opdyke, B., Schmidt, D.C., Weil, F. (eds.) MODELS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4735, pp. 316–330. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bengtsson, J., Larsen, K.G., Larsson, F., Pettersson, P., Yi, W.: Uppaal — a Tool Suite for Automatic Verification of Real–Time Systems. In: Alur, R., Sontag, E.D., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) HS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1066, pp. 232–243. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jensen, K., Kristensen, L.M., Wells, L.: Coloured Petri Nets and CPN Tools for modelling and validation of concurrent systems. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 9(3), 213–254 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Microsoft Office Visio 2007 SDK (October 2006),
  41. 41.
    Moorthy, P.N.: Building a Tool for Synthesis of Correct Design from Interaction Specifications. Master’s thesis, University of California, San Diego (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Varga, A., Hornig, R.: An overview of the omnet++ simulation environment. In: Simutools 2008: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques for Communications, Networks and Systems & Workshops. ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), pp. 1–10. ICST, Brussels (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Quagga Routing Suite,
  44. 44.
    Ferariu, L., Patelli, A.: Migration-based multiobjective genetic programming for nonlinear system identification. In: SACI, pp. 475–480 (2009)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    EFIPSANS - Exposing the Features in IP version Six protocols that can be exploited/extended for the purposes of designing/building Autonomic Networks and Services: EC FP7-IP Project, INFSO-ICT-215549 (2008-2010),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun Prakash
    • 1
  • Zoltán Theisz
    • 2
  • Ranganai Chaparadza
    • 1
  1. 1.Competence Center MOTIONFraunhofer FOKUSBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Network Management Research LabEricsson Ireland Ltd.AthloneIreland

Personalised recommendations