Network model audit and reconciliation using state analysis

• US 7,058,861 B1
• Filed: 12/31/2002
• Issued: 06/06/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 12/31/2002
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Sprint Communications Company LP (Deutsche Telekom AG)
• Original Assignee: Sprint Communications Company LP (Deutsche Telekom AG)
• Inventors: Adams, Mark
• Primary Examiner(s): Bonzo, Bryce
• Assistant Examiner(s): URICK, MATTHEW T
• Application Number:
  US10/335,466
• Time in Patent Office: 1,253 Days
• Field of Search: 714/4, 714/21, 714/47, 709/223, 703/21
• US Class Current: 714/47.2
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0654 using network fault recovery ring fault isolation or reconfiguration in loop networks without recovery actions by a network management system H04L12/437
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0853 by actively collecting configuration information or by backing up configuration information

Abstract

A method for auditing and 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, reporting a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of the resources, monitoring the calculated value, and triggering a reconciliation process when the calculated value drops below 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 trigger and/or measure audit and reconciliation processes.

Claims

1. A method for auditing and 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;

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

monitoring the calculated value; and

triggering at least one reconciliation process when the calculated value drops below a defined threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process which does not eliminate availability of the audited systems or degrade the performance of the systems.

11. The method of claim 9, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process which does not eliminate availability of the audited systems but may degrade the performance of the systems.

12. The method of claim 9, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process which restricts availability of portions of the audited systems during the time the each system is being audited.

13. The method of claim 9, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process which eliminates availability of each of the audited systems during the time each system is being audited.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a process which requires manual supervision and guidance from somewhere in the network.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a process which requires manual supervision and guidance from the site of the audited system.

16. The method of claim 1, wherein the action of triggering a reconciliation process comprises triggering a first reconciliation process and further comprising:

triggering a 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.

17. The method of claim 16, further comprising:

continuing monitoring the calculated value;

triggering 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;

triggering a 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.

18. The method of claim 16, wherein the reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process.

19. The method of claim 17, wherein the first reconciliation process triggered is a fully automated process and the second reconciliation process triggered is not a fully automated process.

20. The method of claim 17, wherein the second reconciliation process triggered is more intrusive than the first reconciliation process triggered.

21. A method for auditing and 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;

monitoring an identified portion of the network for resource messages reflecting a change in the portion of the network;

evaluating the resource messages and the resources impacted by the changes in comparison with the corresponding resources in the network model;

identifying the audit state for the impacted resources and modifying the audit state for each impacted resource where the audit state is changed from the stored audit state for the resource;

reporting a calculated value reflecting the aggregate audit states of all of the resources within the identified portion of the network model.

22. The method of claim 21, wherein the calculated value is the best-case aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

23. The method of claim 21, wherein the calculated value is the worst-case aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

24. The method of claim 21, wherein the calculated value is the presumed average aggregate accuracy percentage of the identified portion of the network model.

25. The method of claim 21, wherein the identified portion of the network model comprises the entire network model.

26. The method of claim 21, wherein the audit state is stored as an additional field in the primary data store for the network model.

27. The method of claim 21, wherein the audit state is stored in a separate data store that is associated with the primary data store for the network model.

28. The method of claim 21, wherein the audit state is selected from one of the group of an unconfirmed state, a confirmed state, and a suspect state.

29. The method of claim 21, wherein monitoring an identified portion of the network for resource messages reflecting a change in the portion of the network further comprises stimulating an identified portion of the network to produce resource messages reflecting a change in the portion of the network.

30. The method of claim 21, wherein a monitored resource message is selected from at least one of configuration command responses, resource error messages, and self-announcement messages.

31. The method of claim 29, wherein a stimulated resource message is selected from at least one of responses to broadcast test messages, responses to targeted query test messages, and responses to connectivity validation methods.