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: 2019-Feb-11
Document File: 22 page(s) / 32K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

L. Steinberg: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1224: DOI

Abstract

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. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
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

Steinberg [Page 1]

RFC 1224 Managing Asynchronously Generated Alerts May 1991

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..................................................... 12 6.2 Notes on Polled, Logged Alerts................................ 12 7. Compatibility with SNMP and CMOT .............................. 14 7.1 Closed Loop Feedback...

Processing...
Loading...