Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mi-Jung Choi1, So-Jung Lee1, Dong-Hyun Kim1, James W. Hong1 and Raouf Boutaba2
1
Abstract
Recently, researchers and developers have been investigating the application of XML technologies to
network and systems management. Although the performance of XML-based network management
systems (XNMS) has been identified as an important issue, it has been difficult to obtain such information
due to a lack of implementations. In this paper, we provide a performance evaluation of XNMS. Our
performance evaluation is based on an XML-based manager managing network devices equipped with
SNMP agents through one or more XML/SNMP gateways. We show the performance evaluation of XNMS
from the perspective of network traffic, response time, and computing resources, namely CPU and memory
usage.
1.
Introduction
To benefit from the advantages of XML [1], research on the use of XML in the network management area is
actively in progress [2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 18]. The use of XML in network management offers many advantages. XML
provides powerful modeling features for hierarchical management information in network management, and
XML-based network management (XNM) allows for the reliable transfer of a large amount of data over HTTP.
Also, XNM can be easily implemented using standard APIs and freely available software. This advantageous
applicability of XML technologies to network management alleviates many of the known problems of traditional
SNMP-based management [3].
During the past few years, some research and development have been done in the area of XML-based network
management. Much work has been done in the area of accommodating widely deployed SNMP devices,
specifically in the specification and interaction translation for the gateways between XML-based managers and
SNMP-based devices [4, 5, 6, 7]. Some work focused on extending Web-based management to exploit the
advantages of XML technologies [8, 9, 10, 11] while others focused specifically on the configuration management
of network devices and systems [12, 13, 14, 17, 18]. Also, some work has been done to provide an architectural
2.
network devices deployed in the POSTECH campus network. The XML-based manager and XML/SNMP gateway
are connected by a 100Mbps LAN. However, XML/SNMP gateways and SNMP agents are connected by not only
100Mbps LAN but also a gigabit Ethernet backbone network. Both XML-based manager and the XML/SNMP
gateway run on Linux servers with a Pentium-III 800 MHz CPU and 256M RAM. As a part of our tests to evaluate
the impact of the change in computing resources on the performance of a gateway server, we upgraded our server
running the XML/SNMP gateway to a Pentium-IV 2.8GHz CPU and 512M RAM.
POSTECH Gigabit Ethernet Backbone Network
100Mbps
100Mbps
XML/SNMP Gateway
1Gbps
XML/SNMP Gateway
100Mbps
XML-based
Manager
100Mbps
Linux sever with
Pentium-III 800 MHz CPU
XML/SNMP Gateway
256 MB RAM
Linux severs with
Pentium-III 800 MHz CPU
256 MB RAM
or Pentium-IV 2.8 GHz CPU
512 MB RAM
1Gbps
Switching
hubs
Internet
routers
100Mbps
100Mbps
Backbone
switches 1Gbps
1Gbps
SNMP Agents
XML/SNMP gateway and SNMP agent. We divide the latency between the gateway and SNMP agent into two
parts: 1) processing time of translating the message in the gateway, and 2) communication time between the
gateway and agent involving all processing required by the SNMP protocol stack in the gateway and the agent. The
purpose of this division is to determine whether the processing time or the communication time is taking longer in
the gateway. Also, we measured the response time and network traffic volume in relation to the XPath expression.
Various XPath expressions can be applied in the gateway. The complexity of XPath expressions impacts the
network traffic volume and processing time.
Finally, we measured the processing overhead of the XML/SNMP gateway in terms of CPU load and run-time
memory usage. To compare the processing time of the gateway based on the change in the computing resources, we
upgraded the CPU and memory of the gateway. Then, we performed the same performance tests and compared the
response time and processing overhead between the lower-performance gateway (Pentium-III 800MHz, 256MB)
and the higher-performance gateway (Pentium-IV 2.8GHz, 512MB).
In a second test scenario, we increased the number of XML/SNMP gateway from 1 to 3. We measured the
performance of XNMS in relation to the number of XML/SNMP gateways. The dotted arrows in Figure 1 illustrate
this test scenario. The performance evaluation metrics are the same as those used in the single XML/SNMP
gateway scenario. First, we measured network traffic between the XML-based manager and SNMP agents through
multiple XML/SNMP gateways in relation to the number of SNMP agents. We separately measured the network
traffic volume between the XML-based manager and multiple XML/SNMP gateways and the network traffic
volume between multiple XML/SNMP gateways and SNMP agents. The traffic volume between multiple
XML/SNMP gateways and SNMP agents represents the sum of the network traffic that each gateway
communicates with SNMP agents.
Next, we measured the response time in relation to the number of SNMP agents. Also, we separately measured
the latency between the XML-based manager and multiple XML/SNMP gateways and the latency between multiple
XML/SNMP gateways and SNMP agents. The latency between multiple XML/SNMP gateways and SNMP agents
represents the entire time taken for all XML/SNMP gateways to finish communicating with SNMP agents. We
divided the latency calculation into two parts in the same way as done in the previous scenario. Finally, we
measured the processing overhead of XML/SNMP gateways, such as CPU load and run-time memory usage. We
measured the values for each XML/SNMP gateway and then averaged them. In this test scenario with multiple
XML/SNMP gateways, the later two gateways handle same load supported by one single gateway in the first test
scenario (i.e., 100 agents). The load is evenly distributed among the gateways. Assume that we are testing the
performance of XNMS using two XML/SNMP gateways. If one gateway receives information from 100 SNMP
agents, we divide the number of SNMP agents by two. Therefore, each gateway interacts with 50 SNMP agents.
Finally, we compare the performance evaluation results in relation to the number of XML/SNMP gateways. We
identify whether the performance is improved or not. If it has improved, we also identify how much it has improved
3.
Performance Evaluation
First, we evaluate the network traffic volume at the IP layer. Table 1 shows the network traffic between the
XML-based manager and XML/SNMP gateway and between the XML/SNMP gateway and SNMP agents to
retrieve eight objects in the system group of MIB-II (system description, system object ID, system up-time, etc.). If
the manager retrieves the interface group information from the SNMP agent, the management information volume
varies because of the difference in the number of network interfaces of each network devices. However, the system
group information is almost the same for all network devices. Therefore, we chose the system group information for
our XNMS performance tests.
The manager sends an HTTP request message then the gateway processes the request message and sends
multiple SNMP request messages to each SNMP agent [15]. The network traffic between the manager and gateway
is the HTTP message including TCP control information and connection setup. The HTTP request message consists
of gateways information including SNMP information (i.e., gateways IP, SNMP community and version) and
network devices information (i.e., devices IP, XPath expression) [15]. In the case of retrieving 1 object or 8
objects from one device, the HTTP messages are almost the same. Merely, XPath expressions indicating retrieved
data are different. In the case of only 1 object in the system group, the XPath expression is //sysDescr or
//sysObjectID, etc. In the case of 8 objects, the XPath is //system. So, the network traffic generated between the
manager and gateway while retrieving 1 object is slightly greater than that while retrieving 8 objects. Both
XML/HTTP traffic and SNMP traffic are divided into the request and response messages for the Get operation. The
sum of the XML/HTTP traffic and SNMP traffic is equal to the total network traffic volume for the XML-based
manager to retrieve management information from the SNMP agents through the gateway.
# of G atew ays
# of Agents
(# of M IB O bjects)
M anager
G atew ay
2
G atew ay
Agent
Req.
R esp.
1080
691
R eq.
R esp.
R eq.
1 (8)
1078
1106
656
744
10 (80)
2022
6688
6560
7658
2264
6854
6560
7658
20 (160)
2965
13670
13120
15305
3208
13986
13120
30 (240)
3895
20356
19680
22615
4144
20605
19680
40 (320)
4817
27148
26240
30936
5073
27546
50 (400)
5798
33457
32800
38636
6051
60 (480)
6754
39973
39360
45951
70 (560)
7795
45786
45200
80 (640)
8802
52354
90 (720)
9895
10936
M anager
G atew ay
Resp.
R eq.
G atew ay
Agent
Resp.
Req.
Resp.
2502
8687
6560
7658
15305
3462
14364
13120
15305
22615
4401
21018
19680
22615
26240
30936
5315
27996
26240
30936
33998
32800
38636
6298
34482
32800
38636
7012
40575
39360
45951
7268
41094
39360
45951
54214
8066
56345
45200
54214
8325
56598
45200
54214
52480
62305
9068
53012
52480
62305
9316
53624
52480
62305
58248
59040
70117
9150
58938
59040
70117
9435
59624
59040
70117
64857
65600
78148
11196
65553
65600
78148
11455
66268
65600
78148
82
R esp.
G atew ay
Agent
1 (1)
100 (800)
Req.
M anager
G atew ay
95
Unit: bytes
Table 1. Network Traffic of Get Operation for the MIB-II System Group
Manager Gateway (Req.) : 1 Gateway
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
XML-based manager and gateway increases linearly in relation to the number of SNMP agents, which is the
number of MIB objects. The network traffic volume between the manager and gateway increases to almost 500
bytes as the number of gateways increases shown in Table 1. However, the total traffic volume between the
gateways and SNMP agents remains constant no matter how many gateways are added. The sum of request and
response network traffic volume between the XML-based manager and gateway is only 50~60% of that between
the gateway and SNMP agents.
Table 2 shows the response time of the Get operation for the system group in relation to the number of SNMP
agents. We divide the latency between the gateway and SNMP agents into two parts: processing time of XML
message and translation to SNMP message in the gateway and the communication time between SNMP stacks in
the gateway and agents. In the case of retrieving only one SNMP agent, the processing time of the manager is
almost same as that of the gateway. However, as the number of SNMP agents increases, most of the processing
overhead increases in the gateway. The time taken by the gateway to process interaction translation and to
communicate with SNMP agents takes about 80~90% of the total time for the XML-based manager to retrieve
system group information from the SNMP agents through one XML/SNMP gateway. However, the processing time
of the XML-based manager does not increase as much in proportion of the number of SNMP agents. In the gateway,
the processing of XML message and interaction translation occupies more processing time than that of the SNMP
communication does.
1
# of Gateways
# of Agents
(# of MIB
Objects)
1 (1)
Manager
Gateway
512
Gateway
Agent
Proc.
404
Comm.
Manager
Gateway
Gateway
Agent
Gateway
Agent
Proc.
Comm.
Manager
Gateway
Proc.
Comm.
1 (8)
524
832
38
10 (80)
558
1058
236
1296
957
175
1405
912
153
20 (160)
623
1278
361
1364
1103
256
1468
1084
189
30 (240)
659
1463
597
1432
1253
329
1532
1153
262
40 (320)
688
1615
698
1512
1296
384
1625
1204
304
50 (400)
715
1820
814
1527
1386
518
1649
1263
351
60 (480)
744
1996
1285
1604
1492
621
1726
1305
394
70 (560)
986
2230
2942
2095
1591
674
2203
1363
469
80 (640)
1084
2586
3296
2287
1673
712
2398
1435
546
90 (720)
1113
5826
6850
2364
1765
759
2485
1502
625
100 (800)
1148
9053
10154
2438
1876
826
2542
1564
702
Unit: ms
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
number of SNMP agents reaches 100. Therefore, we conclude that 80 SNMP agents are suitable for our XNMS
using a single gateway (Pentium-III 800MHz CPU and 256MB RAM).
We have also evaluated the CPU usage and memory usage of the XML-based manager and the XML/SNMP
gateway in relation to the number of SNMP agents. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, memory usage increases
slowly in relation to the number of SNMP agents, whereas CPU usage increases almost linearly. Figure 4 and
Figure 5 show the graph of the CPU usage and memory usage in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. To operate the
gateway, CPU is more utilized than memory. From the perspective of the gateway scalability, as shown in Figure 4,
the memory usage of the XML-based manager increases slowly in relation to the number of gateways. Also, the
CPU usage of the XML-based manager increases as the number of gateways increases because more processing is
required to distribute the requests to the XML/SNMP gateways and to merge the retrieved data from these
gateways.
# of
Gateways
1
2
3
# of SNMP Agents
(# of MIB Objects)
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
1
(8)
10
(80)
20
(160)
30
(240)
40
(320)
50
(400)
60
(480)
70
(560)
80
(640)
90
(720)
100
(800)
5.1
5.9
6.9
8.7
11.8
16.7
21.7
23.8
25.6
27.4
30.4
10.2
12.5
14.2
14.6
14.7
15.1
15.4
16.0
16.3
17.1
17.7
5.1
7.1
8.5
10.8
14.0
19.0
24.4
26.4
28.0
30.0
32.5
10.2
13.4
15.1
15.5
15.8
16.1
16.6
17.0
17.2
18.2
18.9
5.1
8.1
10.2
12.6
16.0
21.3
27.0
29.0
30.3
33.3
35.7
10.2
14.2
16.2
16.3
16.7
17.3
17.6
18.2
18.4
20.1
20.4
Unit: %
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
gateways. Also, the CPU usage of the gateway decreases as the number of gateways increases. Obviously, this is
due to the fact that each gateway interacts with a smaller number of SNMP agents as the number of gateways
increases. As illustrated in Figure 5, the dotted line with squares shows that the CPU usage of one gateway
increases linearly until the gateway handles 80 SNMP agents (640 MIB objects). However, when the number of
SNMP agents is above 80, the CPU usage of the gateway increases rapidly. This explains why the response time
between the gateway and SNMP agents increases when the gateway handles more than 80 SNMP agents.
# of
Gateways
# of SNMP Agents
(# of MIB Objects)
1
(8)
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
CPU Usage
Memory Usage
10
(80)
20
(160)
30
(240)
40
(320)
50
(400)
60
(480)
70
(560)
80
(640)
90
(720)
100
(800)
79.5
3.1
8.2
10.3
14.6
18
23.1
28.5
33.6
39.5
60.3
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
14.4
14.8
15.4
16.8
17.3
18.8
19.7
3.1
5.6
8.4
9.6
10.3
12.1
14.2
16.6
19
22.4
26.5
12.1
12.1
12.3
12.3
12.4
12.4
12.4
13.1
14.1
14.7
15.1
3.1
5.9
6.4
7.2
7.5
9.7
10.3
13.2
14.7
17.5
12.1
12.1
12.2
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.4
12.4
12.4
Unit: %
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
comparison results of the response time on the two different computing environments.
C om puting
R esources of
G atew ays
# of A gen ts
(# of M IB O bjects)
800M H z, 256M B
M anager
G atew ay
2.8G H z, 512M B
G atew ay A gen t
Proc.
C om m .
M anager
G atew ay
G atew ay A gen t
Proc.
C om m .
1 (1)
1012
404
1006
203
1 (8)
1034
832
38
1032
342
22
10 (80)
1188
1058
236
1176
471
129
20 (160)
1245
1278
361
1247
546
184
30 (240)
1318
1463
597
1314
581
277
40 (320)
1398
1615
698
1391
646
331
50 (400)
1408
1820
814
1410
762
402
60 (480)
1484
1996
1285
1483
932
525
70 (560)
1986
2230
2942
1984
1167
965
80 (640)
2165
2586
3296
2161
1420
1329
90 (720)
2226
5826
6850
2227
1757
1694
100 (800)
2295
9053
10154
2295
1998
1821
U nit: m sec
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 6. Response Time between the Gateway and Agents according to Computing Resources
Figure 6 shows the graphical representation of Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the processing time between the
manager and the gateway with the lower performance hardware (Pentium-III 800MHz, 256MB) is almost the same
as that between the manager and the gateway with higher performance hardware (Pentium-IV 2.8GHz, 512MB).
Therefore, we do not present the response time between the manager and gateway in Figure 6. After the computing
resources have been upgraded in our case, the message processing time and translation time decreases by half and
the communication time between SNMP stacks in the gateway and agents also decreases by half. Moreover, the
total processing time using the higher-performance gateway increases slightly when the number of SNMP agents
11
//ifT ab le
//ifInO ctets |
//ifO u tO ctets
//ifO u tO ctets
//ifT yp e/
follow ingsib ling ::
ifO u tO ctets
# of SN M P A gents
(# of M IB
O bjects)
P roc. (m s)
G atew ay
A gents
C om m . (m s)
R eq.(bytes)
R es. (bytes)
(# of M IB
O bjects)
P roc. (m s)
G atew ay
A gents
C om m . (m s)
R eq.(bytes)
R es. (bytes)
(# of M IB
O bjects)
P roc. (m s)
G atew ay
A gents
C om m . (m s)
R eq.(bytes)
R es. (bytes)
(# of M IB
O bjects)
P roc. (m s)
G atew ay
A gents
C om m . (m s)
R eq.(bytes)
R es. (bytes)
1810
3634
4444
6268
2553
2076
3486
3825
8078
7235
4230
7770
11253
14866
18605
148420
297988
364408
513976
662396
155764
304802
376410
530902
684210
164
330
494
660
824
1987
1986
2203
2232
2396
393
786
1080
1291
1863
13448
27060
40508
54120
67568
13776
27720
41496
55440
69216
82
165
247
330
412
1946
1985
2165
2206
2344
196
379
526
777
898
6724
13530
20254
27060
33784
6888
13860
20784
27720
34608
82
165
247
330
412
2863
3355
3965
4710
5271
192
376
589
739
880
6724
13530
20254
27060
33784
6888
13860
20784
27720
34608
12
4.
Discussion of Results
In summary, we evaluated the scalability of the XML-based manager and the XML/SNMP gateway to manage
existing SNMP agents. First, we measured the network traffic volume for XML/HTTP communication and SNMP
communication. The network traffic overhead in SNMP communication is twice as much as
XML/HTTP
communication. Because the SNMP agents supported by current network devices in the POSTECH campus
network implement the SNMPv1 protocol, the XML/SNMP gateway retrieves information from SNMP agents by
using GetNext operations. Consequently, the network traffic volume generated by SNMP communications is high.
The network traffic volume between the XML-based manger and gateway is becoming much smaller than that
between the gateway and SNMP agents as the number of SNMP agents increases. Even if we add more
XML/SNMP gateways, the total traffic volume between the gateways and SNMP agents remains the same. On the
other hand, the traffic volume between the XML-based manager and gateway increases by about 500~1000 bytes
for each added gateway.
Next, we measured the XML/HTTP and SNMP communications time. When we retrieve information from only
one SNMP agent, the response time between the XML-based manager and XML/SNMP gateway is almost the same
as the response time between the XML/SNMP gateway and SNMP agent. The latency between the XML/SNMP
gateway and SNMP agents increases rapidly as the number of SNMP agents increases, whereas the latency between
the XML-based manager and XML/SNMP gateway increases more slowly. The response time between the gateway
and SNMP agents is about 90% of the total response time between the XML-based manager and SNMP agents if
the number of SNMP agents is more than 80. From the perspective of the gateway scalability, if we use one
gateway, the total response time increases in scale by about 1000ms every time we add ten SNMP agents until the
number of SNMP agents is about 70~80. However, if the number of SNMP agents exceeds 80, the total response
time rapidly increases by about 15000ms. In contrast, when two or three gateways are used, the total response time
increases almost linearly until the number of SNMP agents reaches 100. The processing time between the gateway
and SNMP agents decreases considerably as the number of gateways increases. Therefore, the total processing time
between the XML-based manager and SNMP agents decreases. The total response time when using two gateways is
almost half the response time when using a single gateway. When three gateways are used, the total response time
is almost one-third of that when a single gateway is used. 70~80 SNMP agents are suitable for one gateway
(Pentium-II 800MHz and 256MB) to manage.
Also, we measured the computing resources of the XML-based manager and XML/SNMP gateway. When the
network devices are managed through one gateway, the resource utilization of the XML-based manager increases as
the number of SNMP agents increases. The CPU usage increases by 1~5% every time ten SNMP agents are added,
whereas memory usage increases by less than 2%. The increase rate of memory usage is not large compared to that
of CPU usage, because the management information loaded to the DOM tree is almost regular although the number
of SNMP agents increases. In terms of the gateway scalability, CPU usage of the XML-based manager increases by
13
2~3% and memory usage of the XML-based manager increases by 1~2% every time we add one more gateway.
The resource utilization of the XML/SNMP gateway also increases as the number of SNMP agents increases.
When the network devices are managed through a single gateway, the CPU usage of this gateway increases almost
linearly by 3~6% until the number of SNMP agents reaches 80. However, it rapidly increases to more than 20%
when the number of SNMP agents reaches 80. This is why the response time between the gateway and SNMP
agents increases considerably after the number of SNMP agents is above 80. The gateway simultaneously makes
requests for multiple MIB objects to multiple SNMP agents using multi-threading mechanisms. When the number
of SNMP MIB objects exceeds 640, the CPU cannot support more threads. Therefore, we also need to upgrade the
CPU of the gateway or add another gateway as the number of the SNMP agents grows. The memory usage of the
gateway increases by 1~2%, however, the change is negligible.
From the perspective of the gateway scalability, the amount of computing resources assigned to each gateway
decreases as the number of gateways increases. The CPU usage of the gateway decreases to a half when two
gateways are used in the management system. Also, the CPU usage of the gateway decreases to one-third when
three gateways are used. The memory usage of the gateway also decreases by about 1~4% each time a new gateway
is added.
We performed more tests after upgrading the computing environments from 800MHz CPU and 256MB RAM to
2.8GHz CPU and 512MB RAM. The processing time of the gateway decreased by a half after upgrading the
computing resources. Also, the processing time of the gateway with 2.8GHz and 512MB did not lead to a
significant increase when the number of SNMP agents is above 80. The upgrade of computing resources allows to
support more threads and hence to retrieve thousands of MIB objects simultaneously.
Finally, we evaluated the processing time of different XPath expressions. Based on different XPath expressions,
the transferred message size and processing time vary significantly. Though they are the same XPath expressions,
the difference in the complexity of their XPath expressions leads to different processing times. Therefore, one must
carefully select an appropriate XPath expression for exactly specifying the target objects to retrieve and avoid
delivering unnecessary data to the manager. The XML/SNMP gateway must provide acceptable performance when
concurrent calls from managers are made. Therefore, it is more desirable to delegate these overheads of XPath
parsing to the managers, provided that most manager systems have sufficient computing resources. Also, it can be
considered that the XML/SNMP gateway supports limited XPath expressions, and time-consuming XPath parsing
is performed in the manager for reducing the overhead of the gateway.
Even though the network traffic volumes and the number of MIB objects are small, the processing time of the
gateway is much higher and larger when there are more SNMP agents due to the processing overhead of the XML
messages parsing in the gateway. The gateway calls the snmpwalk function to retrieve multiple MIB objects from
the SNMP agent and the snmpwalk function internally uses
operations when there are a number of SNMP agents (i.e., 10 operations for each of 10 agents) takes more time than
14
when there are smaller number of SNMP agents (i.e., 100 operations for 1 agent), assuming the total number of
GetNext requests (i.e., 100 times) is the same in both situations.
5.
performance evaluation results, we showed that the performance overheads of XNMS is not severe. We have
deployed XNMS for managing various network devices in the POSTECH gigabit campus network. We monitored
100 Cisco routers and switches among the POSTECH network devices. Because these network devices are
equipped with SNMPv1 agents, we used an XML/SNMP gateway approach to manage them. As the number of the
gateway increases, the total processing time is reduced considerably. More the gateways are used, shorter the
response time is. Also, the selection of an appropriate XPath expression can reduce the transferred message size and
processing time of the gateway. The performance evaluation results show that the volume of network traffic
between the XML/SNMP gateway and SNMP agents is larger. Also, the latency between the XML/SNMP gateway
and SNMP agents is longer. Therefore, SNMP processing overhead between the gateway and agents is much higher
than XML/HTTP processing overhead between the manager and gateway.
To reduce the network traffic overhead and response time between the gateway and SNMP agents, one needs to
upgrade the SNMP agents to support SNMPv2 using GetBulk operations. However, most of the widely-deployed
network devices are equipped with SNMPv1 agents. So, it is difficult to employ SNMPv2 agents and obtain
performance gain of the network traffic in the current situation. An interesting future work is to implement a tuning
process to optimize the CPU of the XML-based manager and the gateway. Also, as a future work, we would like to
devise a method for replacing the DOM parser with a SAX parser in order to reduce memory usage.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the NMRG members at the NOMS 2004 NMRG meeting who gave us
valuable comments on our work for improving the quality of our paper.
References
[1] T. Bray, J. Paoli and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, W3
Recommendation REC-xml-19980210, Feb. 1998.
[2] F. Strauss, and T. Klie, Towards XML Oriented Internet Management, Proc. IFIP/IEEE International
Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2003), Colorado Springs, USA, Mar. 2003, pp.505~518.
[3] J. Schonwalder, A. Pras, J.P. Martin-Flatin, On the Future of Internet Management Technologies, IEEE
Communications Magazine, October 2003, pp.90~97.
[4] Frank Strauss, et al, A Library to Access SMI MIB Information, http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/.
[5] Avaya Labs., XML based Management Interface for SNMP Enabled Devices, http://www.research.
avayalabs.com/user/mazum/Projects/XML/.
15
[6] J. H. Yoon, H. T. Ju and J. W. Hong, Development of SNMP-XML Translator and Gateway for XML-based
Integrated Network Management, International Journal of Network Management (IJNM), Vol. 13, No. 4,
July-August 2003, pp. 259-276.
[7] Y. J. Oh, H. T. Ju, M. J. Choi, J. W. Hong, Interaction Translation Methods for XML/SNMP Gateway,
Proc. of DSOM 2002, Montreal Canada, Oct. 2002, pp. 54~65.
[8] WBEM, WBEM Initiative, http://www.dmtf.org/wbem/.
[9] J.P. Martin-Flatin. Web-Based Management of IP Networks and Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL), Oct. 2000.
[10] H. T. Ju, M. J. Choi, S. H. Han, Y. J. Oh, J. H. Yoon, H. J. Lee, and J. W. Hong, An Embedded Web Server
Architecture for XML-based Network Management, Proc. of IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and
Management Symposium (NOMS 2002), Florence, Italy, Apr. 2002, pp.1~14.
[11] A. John, K. Vanderveen and B. Sugla, XNAMI-An extensible XML-based paradigm for network and
application management instrumentation, Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Network, 1999. pp.
115124.
[12] P. Shafer and R. Enns, JUNOScript: An XML-based Network Management API,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafer-js-xml-api-00.txt, Aug. 27, 2002.
[13] Cisco Systems, Cisco Configuration Registrar,
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/rtrmgmt/ie2100/cnfg_reg/index.htm.
[14] IETF, Network Configuration (Netconf), http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/Netconf-charter.html.
[15] M. J. Choi, J W. Hong and H. T. Ju, XML-based Network Management for IP Networks, ETRI Journal,
Vol. 25, No. 6, Dec. 2003, pp. 445~463.
[16] M. J. Choi, J. M. Oh, and J. W. Hong, Design and Implementation of XML-Based Management Agent,
Proc. Of IEEE/IFIP Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS2003),
Fukuoka Japan, Oct. 2003, pp 331-342.
[17] H. M. Choi, M. J. Choi, and J. W. Hong, Design and Impelmentation of XML-based Configuration
Management System for Distributed Systems, Proc. of IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management
Symposium (NOMS 2004), Seoul, Korea, Apr. 2004, pp. 831-844.
[18] M. J. Choi, H. M. Choi, H. T. Ju and J. W. Hong, XML-based Configuration Management for IP Network
Devices, Accepted to Appear in a Special Issue on XML-based Management of Networks and Services in
IEEE Communications Magazine, July 1, 2004.
16