Network model reconciliation using state analysis

• US 6,836,798 B1
• Filed: 12/31/2002
• Issued: 12/28/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 12/31/2002
• Status: Expired due to Term

• Current Assignee: T-Mobile Innovations LLC (Deutsche Telekom AG)
• Original Assignee: Sprint Communications Company LP (Deutsche Telekom AG)
• Inventors: Adams, Mark
• Primary Examiner(s): Jaroenchonwanit, Bunjob
• Application Number:
  US10/335,321
• Time in Patent Office: 728 Days
• Field of Search: 709/223, 709/224, 370/242, 370/252, 370/254
• US Class Current: 709/223
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0859 by keeping history of different configuration generations or by rolling back to previous configuration versions
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0863 by rolling back to previous configuration versions
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0866 Checking the configuration
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 43/50 Testing arrangements

Abstract

A method for reconciliation of a network with a network model that includes identifying an audit state for each network resource included in the network model, storing the audit state for each resource, coupling the stored audit state information with information regarding the resource, determining a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of the resources, and running a series of reconciliation processes of increasing intrusiveness until the calculated value meets a defined threshold. The calculated value can be a best-case aggregate accuracy percentage, worst-case aggregate accuracy percentage, or presumed average aggregate accuracy percentage. The audit state can be stored as an additional field in the primary data store for the network model or in a separate data store that is associated with the primary data store. The audit state can be unconfirmed, confirmed, or suspect. The audit state is used to manage the intrusiveness of the reconciliation processes.

Claims

1. A method for managing reconciliation of a network with a network model comprising:

identifying an audit state for each resource of the network which is included in the network model;

storing the audit state for each resource and coupling the stored audit state information with information regarding the resource associated with the network model;

determining a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of all of the resources within an identified portion of the network model;

starting at least one reconciliation process in the identified portion of the network model;

starting a first comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the first reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state;

starting a second reconciliation process if the calculated value after completion of the comparison process using the results of the first reconciliation process is below a defined threshold;

starting a second comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the second reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the second reconciliation process is more intrusive than the first reconciliation process.

3. The method of claim 1, further comprising after the second comparison process:

starting a third reconciliation process if the calculated value after completion of the comparison process using the results of the first reconciliation process is below a defined threshold;

starting a third comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the second reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the second reconciliation process is more intrusive than the first reconciliation process and wherein the third reconciliation process is more intrusive than the second reconciliation process.

5. The method of claim 3, further comprising after the third comparison process:

continuing to start additional reconciliation processes with increasing intrusiveness and subsequent comparison processes until the calculated value after completion of the last comparison process meets a defined threshold.

6. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process is a fully automated process and wherein the second reconciliation process is a process which requires manual supervision and guidance from somewhere in the network.

7. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process is a fully automated process which does not eliminate availability of the audited systems or degrade the performance of the systems and wherein the second reconciliation process is a fully automated process which does not eliminate availability of the audited systems but may degrade the performance of the systems.

8. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process is a fully automated process which does not eliminate availability of the audited systems but may degrade the performance of the systems and wherein the second reconciliation process is a fully automated process which restricts availability of portions of the audited systems during the time the each system is being audited.

9. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process is a fully automated process which restricts availability of portions of the audited systems during the time the each system is being audited and wherein the second reconciliation process is a fully automated process which eliminates availability of each of the audited systems during the time each system is being audited.

10. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process is a process which requires manual supervision and guidance from somewhere in the network and wherein the second reconciliation process is a process which requires manual supervision and guidance from the site of the audited system.

11. The method of claim 1 wherein the calculated value is the best-case aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

12. The method of claim 1 wherein the calculated value is the worst-case aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the calculated value is the presumed average aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

14. The method of claim 1 wherein the identified portion of the network model comprises the entire network model.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the audit state is stored as an additional field in the primary data store for the network model.

16. The method of claim 1, wherein the audit state is stored in a separate data store that is associated with the primary data store for the network model.

17. The method of claim 1, wherein the audit state is selected from one of the group of an unconfirmed state, a confirmed state, and a suspect state.

18. The method of claim 2, wherein the first reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process and the second reconciliation process triggered is not a fully automated process.

19. A method for managing reconciliation of a network with a network model comprising:

identifying an audit state for each resource of the network which is included in the network model;

storing the audit state for each resource and coupling the stored audit state information with information regarding the resource associated with the network model;

determining a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of all of the resources within an identified portion of the network model;

starting at least one reconciliation process in the identified portion of the network model;

starting a first comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the first reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state;

comparing the calculated value after completion of the first comparison process with the calculated value before starting the first comparison process;

starting a second reconciliation process if the improvement in the calculated value after completion of the comparison process is below a defined threshold;

starting a second comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the second reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state.

20. A method for managing reconciliation of a network with a network model comprising:

identifying an audit state for each resource of the network which is included in the network model;

storing the audit state for each resource and coupling the stored audit state information with information regarding the resource associated with the network model;

determining a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of all of the resources within an identified portion of the network model;

starting at least one reconciliation process in the identified portion of the network model;

starting a first comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the first reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state;

comparing the calculated value after completion of the first comparison process with the calculated value before starting the first comparison process;

starting a second reconciliation process if the improvement in the calculated value after completion of the comparison process is below a defined threshold;

starting a second comparison process wherein the comparison process comprises comparing the results of the second reconciliation process with the network model, identifying the proper audit state for every compared resource, and modifying the stored audit state for every resource whose proper audit state is different than the stored audit state comparing the calculated value after completion of the second comparison process with the calculated value before starting the first comparison process;

continuing to start additional reconciliation processes with increasing intrusiveness and subsequent comparison processes until the improvement in the calculated value after completion of the latest comparison process, as compared with the calculated value before starting the first comparison process, meets a defined threshold.