Network difference reporting

• US 20060015604A1
• Filed: 07/13/2005
• Published: 01/19/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 07/14/2004
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Riverbed Technology, LLC (Riverbed Technology Incorporated)
• Original Assignee: OPNET Technologies Incorporated (Riverbed Technology Incorporated)
• Inventors: Mollitor, Robert
• Granted Patent: US 8,589,531 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 709/223
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0233 Object-oriented techniques, for representation of network management data, e.g. common object request broker architecture [CORBA]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/14 Network analysis or design
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/22 comprising specially adapted graphical user interfaces [GUI]

Abstract

A network difference reporting method and system categorizes the differences between two networks, and provides an output report structured by these categories. The preferred categories include objects common to both networks that have different attributes; objects found only in the first network; objects found only in the second network; and objects common to both networks that have similar attributes. A user-interface is provided to allow a user to identify objects or attributes that are to be included or excluded from the identified differences. Preferably, the output reports includes a graphic display of differences that uses the same hierarchical object attribute structure as the networks, to facilitate a rapid understanding of the reported differences between the networks.

Claims

1. A method comprising:

obtaining a first network description,

obtaining a second network description,

obtaining a set of comparison behavior parameters, and

providing a comparison of the first network description and the second network description to identify differences, based on the comparison behavior parameters.

2. The method of claim 1, further including

categorizing the differences into a set of categories, and

providing a difference report that is structured based on the set of categories.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein

at least one category of the set of categories includes

a network object that is common to the first and second network descriptions, and includes one or more attributes that differ in the first and second network descriptions.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein

the difference report includes an identification of the network object and each of the one or more attributes that differ.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein

the first and second network descriptions identify a hierarchical network object attribute structure, and

the difference report is further structured based on the hierarchical network object attribute structure.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein

the difference report includes an identification of each hierarchical layer of the hierarchical network object attribute structure corresponding to each of the one or more attributes that differ.

7. The method of claim 6, further including

displaying the identification of each hierarchical attribute layer selectively in one of:

a tabular form, and a graphic form.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein

the tabular form includes a column corresponding to each hierarchical attribute layer, which is configured to contain the identification of the hierarchical attribute layer.

9. The method of claim 3, wherein

at least one other category of the set of categories includes

network objects that are included in the first network description, and not included in the second network description.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein

at least one other category of the set of categories includes

network objects that are substantially equivalent in each of the first and second network descriptions.

11. The method of claim 2, wherein

at least one category of the set of categories includes

network objects that are included in the first network description, and not included in the second network description.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein

the difference report includes an identification of the network object and each of one or more attributes that differ from default attributes associated with the network object.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein

the first network description identifies a hierarchical network object attribute structure, and

the difference report is further structured based on the hierarchical network object attribute structure.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein

the difference report includes an identification of each hierarchical layer of the hierarchical network object attribute structure corresponding to each of the one or more attributes that differ from the default attributes.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein

the comparison behavior parameters include:

an identification of network objects that are to be excluded from the comparison.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein

the comparison behavior parameters include:

an identification of attributes that are to be excluded from the comparison.

17. The method of claim 1, wherein

the comparison behavior parameters include:

an identification of attributes that are to be excluded from the comparison.

18. A network difference reporting system comprising:

a comparator that is configured to determine differences between a first network description and a second network description; and

a report generator that is configured to display the differences,

wherein

the first and second network descriptions identify a hierarchical network object attribute structure, and

the report generator is configured to display the differences based on the hierarchical network object attribute structure.

19. The system of claim 18, further including

a categorizer that is configured to categorize the differences into a set of categories, and

the report generator is configured to display the differences based on the set of categories.

20. The system of claim 19, wherein

at least one category of the set of categories includes

network objects that are common to both the first and second network descriptions and include one or more relevant attributes that differ between the first and second network descriptions.

21. The system of claim 20, wherein

at least another category of the set of categories includes

network objects that are included in the first network description and are not included in the second network description.

22. The system of claim 21, wherein

at least another of the categories includes

network objects that are not included in the first network description and are included in the second network description.

23. The system of claim 22, wherein

at least another of the categories includes

network objects that are common to both the first and second network descriptions and do not have any relevant attributes that differ between the first and second network description.

24. The system of claim 18, wherein

the comparator is configured to compare the first and second network descriptions based on a user-defined set of comparison parameters.

25. The system of claim 24, wherein

the user-defined set of comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included network objects from excluded network objects, and

the comparator is further configured to determine the differences based on the included network objects only.

26. The system of claim 25, wherein

the user-defined set of comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included attributes from excluded attributes, and

the comparator is further configured to determine the differences based on the included attributes only.

27. The system of claim 26, wherein

the user-defined set of comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included attributes from excluded attributes, and

the comparator is further configured to determine the differences based on the included attributes only.

28. The system of claim 18, further including

a difference description generator that is configured to receive the differences and to produce therefrom a differences description, and

the report generator is configured to display the differences based on the differences description.

29. The system of claim 28, wherein

the differences description is XML-encoded.

30. The system of claim 18, wherein

the report generator is configured to selectively display the differences in one of:

a tabular form, and a graphic form.

31. The system of claim 30, wherein

the report generator is configured to include an identification of each hierarchy of the hierarchical network object attribute structure.

32. The system of claim 31, wherein

the identification of each hierarchy is included in a corresponding column of a table when the differences are displayed in the tabular form.

33. The system of claim 18, wherein

the report generator is configured to color-code the differences for display.

34. The system of claim 18, wherein

the first and second network descriptions are XML-encoded.

35. A network difference reporting system, comprising:

a comparator that is configured to compare a plurality of network descriptions, based on user-defined comparison parameters, and to provide therefrom an identification of differences between/among the plurality of network descriptions, and

a report generator that is configured to display the differences.

36. The system of claim 35, further including

a categorizer that is configured to categorize the differences based on a set of categories, and

the report generator is further configured to display the differences based on the set of categories.

37. The system of claim 36, wherein

the set of categories includes at least a first category corresponding to objects common to the plurality of network descriptions and having one or more attributes that differ between/among the plurality of network descriptions.

38. The system of claim 37, wherein

the set of categories includes at least a second category corresponding to objects that occur in at least one of the network descriptions and do not occur in at least one other of the network descriptions.

39. The system of claim 35, wherein

the set of categories includes at least a category corresponding to objects that occur in at least one of the network descriptions and do not occur in at least one other of the network descriptions.

40. The system of claim 36, further including

a difference description generator that is configured to receive the differences and to provide a differences description based on the set of categories, and

the report generator is configured to display the differences based on the differences description.

41. The system of claim 40, wherein

the plurality of network descriptions include a hierarchical arrangement of network objects and attributes associated with the network objects, and

the difference description generator is further configured to provide the differences description based on the hierarchical arrangement.

42. The system of claim 41, wherein

the report generator is further configured to display one or more of the differences based on the hierarchical arrangement.

43. The system of claim 42, wherein

the report generator is further configured to selectively display the differences in one of:

a tabular form, and a graphic form.

44. The system of claim 43, wherein

the report generator is configured to display an identification of each hierarchy of the hierarchical arrangement.

45. The system of claim 44, wherein

the report generator displays the identification of each hierarchy in a corresponding column of a table when the report generator displays the differences in tabular form.

46. The system of claim 43, wherein

the report generator is further configured to display the differences in different colors, based on a characteristic of each difference.

47. The system of claim 35, wherein

the user-defined comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included network objects from excluded network objects, and

the comparator is further configured to compare the plurality of network descriptions based on the included network objects only.

48. The system of claim 47, wherein

the user-defined comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included attributes from excluded attributes, and

the comparator is further configured to compare the plurality of network descriptions based on the included attributes only.

49. The system of claim 35, wherein

the user-defined comparison parameters are configured to distinguish included attributes from excluded attributes, and

the comparator is further configured to compare the plurality of network descriptions based on the included attributes only.