Browse Prior Art Database

Techniques for managing asynchronously generated alerts (RFC1224)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002038D
Original Publication Date: 1991-May-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 19 page(s) / 50K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

L. Steinberg: AUTHOR

Abstract

This RFC explores mechanisms to prevent a remotely managed entity from burdening a manager or network with an unexpected amount of network management information, and to ensure delivery of "important" information. The focus is on controlling the flow of asynchronously generated information, and not how the information is generated.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 6% of the total text.

Network Working Group L. Steinberg

Request for Comments: 1224 IBM Corporation

May 1991

Techniques for Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts

Status of this Memo

This memo defines common mechanisms for managing asynchronously

produced alerts in a manner consistent with current network

management protocols.

This memo specifies an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This RFC explores mechanisms to prevent a remotely managed entity

from burdening a manager or network with an unexpected amount of

network management information, and to ensure delivery of "important"

information. The focus is on controlling the flow of asynchronously

generated information, and not how the information is generated.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................... 2

2. Problem Definition............................................. 3

2.1 Polling Advantages............................................ 3

(a) Reliable detection of failures............................... 3

(b) Reduced protocol complexity on managed entity................ 3

(c) Reduced performance impact on managed entity................. 3

(d) Reduced configuration requirements to manage remote entity... 4

2.2 Polling Disadvantages......................................... 4

(a) Response time for problem detection.......................... 4

(b) Volume of network management traffic generated............... 4

2.3 Alert Advantages.............................................. 5

(a) Real-time knowledge of problems.............................. 5

(b) Minimal amount of network management traffic................. 5

2.4 Alert Disadvantages........................................... 5

(a) Potential loss of critical information....................... 5

(b) Potential to over-inform a manager........................... 5

3. Specific Goals of this Memo.................................... 6

4. Compatibility with Existing Network Management Protocols....... 6

5. Closed Loop "Feedback" Alert Reporting with a "Pin" Sliding

Window Limit................................................... 6

5.1 Use of Feedback............................................... 7

5.1.1 Example..................................................... 8

5.2 Notes on Feedback/Pin usage................................... 8

6. Polled, Logged Alerts.......................................... 9

6.1 Use of Polled, Logged Alerts.................................. 10

6.1.1 Example........................................................