Network Working Group M. Eder
Request for Comments: 3052 Nokia
Category: Informational S. Nag
January 2001
Network Working Group M. Eder
Request for Comments: 3052 Nokia
Category: Informational S. Nag
January 2001
Service Management Architectures Issues and Review
服务管理体系结构问题和回顾
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
Many of the support functions necessary to exploit the mechanisms by which differing levels of service can be provided are limited in scope and a complete framework is non-existent. Various efforts at such a framework have received a great deal of attention and represent a historical shift in scope for many of the organizations looking to address this problem. The purpose of this document is to explore the problems of defining a Service management framework and to examine some of the issues that still need to be resolved.
利用提供不同服务级别的机制所需的许多支持功能在范围上是有限的，并且不存在完整的框架。在这样一个框架下作出的各种努力受到了极大的关注，对许多寻求解决这一问题的组织来说，这是一个范围上的历史性转变。本文档的目的是探讨定义服务管理框架的问题，并研究一些仍然需要解决的问题。
Efforts to provide mechanisms to distinguish the priority given to one set of packets, or flows, relative to another are well underway and in many modern IP networks, best effort service will be just one of the many services being offered by the network as opposed to it being the only service provided. Unfortunately, many of the support functions necessary to exploit the mechanisms by which network level service can be provided are limited in scope and a complete framework is non-existent. Compounding the problem is the varied understanding of exactly what the scope of "service" is in an IP network. IP, in contrast to connection oriented network technologies, will not be able to limit the definition of service management simply to end to end connectivity, but will combine service management with regards to transport with the service requirements of the actual applications and how they are using the network. The phenomenal growth in data networks as well as the growth in application bandwidth usage has had the consequence that the existing methods of management are not sufficient to handle the growing demands of scale and complexity.
提供机制以区分一组数据包或流相对于另一组数据包或流的优先级的工作正在进行中，在许多现代IP网络中，尽力而为服务将只是网络提供的众多服务之一，而不是提供的唯一服务。不幸的是，利用提供网络级服务的机制所需的许多支持功能的范围有限，并且不存在完整的框架。使问题更加复杂的是，人们对IP网络中“服务”的范围有着不同的理解。与面向连接的网络技术相比，IP不能将服务管理的定义仅限于端到端的连接，而是将有关传输的服务管理与实际应用程序的服务需求以及它们如何使用网络结合起来。数据网络的显著增长以及应用程序带宽使用的增长导致现有的管理方法不足以处理不断增长的规模和复杂性需求。
The network and service management issue is going to be a major problem facing the networks of the future. This realization is a significant motivating factor in various efforts within the IP community which has been traditionally reluctant to take on issues of this type [1]. The purpose of this document is to explore the problems of developing a framework for managing the network and services and to examine some of the issues that recent efforts have uncovered.
网络和服务管理问题将成为未来网络面临的一个主要问题。这种认识是知识产权界各种努力的一个重要激励因素，传统上知识产权界一直不愿承担此类问题[1]。本文件的目的是探讨开发网络和服务管理框架的问题，并检查最近的工作发现的一些问题。
Network and service level issues traditionally are handled in IP networks by engineering the network to provide the best service possible for a single class of service. Increasingly there is a desire that IP networks be used to carry data with specific QoS constraints. IP networks will require a tremendous amount of management information to provision, maintain, validate, and bill for these new services. The control and distribution of management information in complex communications networks is one of the most sophisticated tasks a network management framework must resolve. This is compounded by the likelihood that devices in IP networks will be varied and have differing management capabilities, ranging from complex computing and switching platforms to personal hand held devices and everything in between. Scaling and performance requirements will make the task of defining a single management framework for these networks extremely complex.
传统上，IP网络中的网络和服务级别问题是通过对网络进行工程设计来处理的，以便为单一类别的服务提供尽可能最好的服务。人们越来越希望使用IP网络来传输具有特定QoS约束的数据。IP网络将需要大量的管理信息来提供、维护、验证和计费这些新服务。在复杂的通信网络中控制和分发管理信息是网络管理框架必须解决的最复杂的任务之一。IP网络中的设备可能多种多样，并且具有不同的管理能力，从复杂的计算和交换平台到个人手持设备，以及介于两者之间的所有设备，这使得情况更加复杂。扩展和性能要求将使为这些网络定义单一管理框架的任务变得极其复杂。
In the past standardization efforts have suggested a simplified model for management on the hypothesis that it can be extrapolated to solve complex systems. This premise has often proved to be without merit because of the difficulty of developing such a model that meets both the operators heterogeneous, multi-vendor need and network equipment vendors specific needs. At the center of efforts to devise a standard management model are attempts to develop an architecture or framework to control the management information. The same conflicting operator vs. vendor forces are present in the effort to establish a common framework architecture as are in the efforts to develop a common information model.
在过去的标准化工作中，提出了一种简化的管理模型，其假设是可以外推来解决复杂系统。这一前提通常被证明是没有价值的，因为很难开发出既能满足运营商异构、多供应商需求又能满足网络设备供应商特定需求的模型。设计标准管理模型的核心是试图开发一种体系结构或框架来控制管理信息。与开发公共信息模型的工作一样，在建立公共框架体系结构的工作中，存在着相同的冲突运营商与供应商力量。
Network operators requirements call for a framework that will permit centralized management of the network and require the minimal resources to operate and maintain while still providing tremendous flexibility in choice of equipment and creativity of defining services [2]. Operators may be less able to support change in their Operational Support Systems (OSS) then they are in the network infrastructure because the OSS is tightly integrated into the
网络运营商的要求需要一个框架，该框架允许对网络进行集中管理，并需要最少的资源进行操作和维护，同时在设备选择和定义服务的创造性方面提供极大的灵活性[2]。运营商可能无法支持其运营支持系统（OSS）的变化，因为OSS与网络基础设施紧密集成
organizations business practices. The need for flexibility, and the other desires identified above, operators expect to have meet by having equipment vendors support open and common interfaces.
组织商业实践。运营商希望通过让设备供应商支持开放和通用接口来满足灵活性需求和上述其他需求。
Device manufactures have a need for management that will best represent the features and capabilities of the equipment they are developing and any management solution that hinders the ability of the equipment vendors to efficiently bring innovation to the market is contrary to their objectives.
设备制造商需要最能代表其正在开发的设备的功能和能力的管理，任何阻碍设备供应商有效地将创新引入市场的管理解决方案都与其目标背道而驰。
The common framework for solving the management needs of operators and equipment vendors has been based on a centralized approach with a the manager agent architecture. While providing a very straightforward approach to the problem of information management, this approach, and its variations, has not proved to scale well or allowed the flexibility required in today's modern data networks. Scaling and flexibility are especially a problem where there are many sophisticated network devices present. Methods of control must be found that work and scale at the same speeds as that of the control plane of the network itself if a major concern of the management system is with the dynamic control of traffic in a network. Increasingly it is a requirement that customers at the edge of the network be able to have access to management functionality. A centralized management approach may not provide the most convenient architecture to allow this capability.
解决运营商和设备供应商的管理需求的通用框架基于一种集中式方法，采用manager-agent体系结构。虽然为信息管理问题提供了一种非常简单的方法，但这种方法及其变体并不能很好地扩展，也不能满足当今现代数据网络所需的灵活性。当存在许多复杂的网络设备时，扩展性和灵活性尤其是一个问题。如果管理系统的主要关注点是网络中流量的动态控制，则必须找到与网络自身控制平面的工作和扩展速度相同的控制方法。网络边缘的客户越来越需要能够访问管理功能。集中式管理方法可能无法提供允许此功能的最方便的体系结构。
Frameworks based on a decentralized approach to the management architecture have gained momentum in recent years, but must address the possibility of having redundant management information throughout the network. A decentralized framework may have advantages with regards to scaling and speed of operation, but information and state management becomes complex in this approach, resulting in additional complication in developing such systems.
近年来，基于分散式管理架构的框架获得了发展势头，但必须解决在整个网络中存在冗余管理信息的可能性。分散的框架在规模和运行速度方面可能具有优势，但在这种方法中，信息和状态管理变得复杂，导致开发此类系统的额外复杂性。
The complexity of managing a network increases dramatically as the number of services and the number and complexity of devices in the network increases. The success of IP networks can be partially traced to the successful separation of transport control mechanisms from the complexity of service management, including billing. As the trend in IP is to allow for classes of traffic that will have both transport and service dependencies it has become apparent that many of the management problems are becoming more complex in nature and are starting to resemble those of the traditional telecom provisioned service environment. In the telecom environment no such separation exists between transport control mechanisms and service. The Telecom community has struggled for years to come up with a standard solution for the problem in national and international standardization bodies and achieved a debatable amount of industry acceptance.
随着网络中服务的数量以及设备的数量和复杂性的增加，管理网络的复杂性急剧增加。IP网络的成功部分可以追溯到传输控制机制与服务管理（包括计费）复杂性的成功分离。由于IP的趋势是允许同时具有传输和服务依赖性的流量类别，因此很明显，许多管理问题在本质上变得更加复杂，并且开始类似于传统电信供应服务环境。在电信环境中，传输控制机制和服务之间不存在这种分离。多年来，电信界一直在努力在国家和国际标准化机构中为这一问题找到一个标准解决方案，并获得了业界的认可。
Unfortunately, the hard learned lessons of how to manage the interdependencies between service and transport will be of questionable use to the IP community because of the much more limited concept of service in the telecommunications environment.
不幸的是，由于电信环境中的服务概念非常有限，因此，如何管理服务和传输之间的相互依赖关系这一刻苦学习的经验教训对IP社区的使用将是有问题的。
Rules based management has received much attention as a method to reduce much of the overhead and operator intervention that was necessary in traditional management systems. The potential exists that a rules-based system could reduce the rate at which management information is increasing, but given the tremendous growth in this information, the problems with the control of that information will continue to exist. Rules add additional issues to the complexity of managing a network and as such will contribute to the information control problem.
基于规则的管理作为一种减少传统管理系统所需的大量开销和操作员干预的方法，受到了广泛关注。基于规则的系统可能会降低管理信息的增长速度，但鉴于这些信息的巨大增长，控制这些信息的问题将继续存在。规则增加了管理网络的复杂性，因此会导致信息控制问题。
Much of the current management efforts are focused on solving control issues for IP QoS [3]. A number of open questions exist with the IP QoS architecture which will make it difficult to define a management architecture until they are resolved. These are well documented in "Next steps for the IP QoS architecture" [4], but from the management perspective warrant emphasizing.
当前的许多管理工作都集中于解决IP QoS的控制问题[3]。IP QoS体系结构存在许多开放性问题，在这些问题得到解决之前，很难定义管理体系结构。这些在“IP QoS体系结构的下一步”[4]中有很好的记录，但从管理的角度来看，值得强调。
Current IP QoS architectures have not defined if the service will be per-application or only a transport-layer option. This will have significant impact both from a control perspective and from a billing and service assurance one.
当前的IP QoS体系结构尚未定义服务是针对每个应用程序还是仅针对传输层选项。这将从控制角度以及计费和服务保证角度产生重大影响。
The assumption is that the routing best effort path will be used for both best effort traffic and for traffic of a different service level. In addition to those issues raised in [4], best effort path routing may not be able to identify the parameters necessary to identify routes capable of sustaining distinguished service traffic.
假设路由尽力而为路径将用于尽力而为流量和不同服务级别的流量。除了[4]中提出的问题外，尽力而为路径路由可能无法识别识别能够维持卓越服务流量的路由所需的参数。
In any architecture where a premium service will be offered it is a strong requirement that the service be measurable and sustainable. Provisioning that service will require a coherent view of the network and not just the device management view that is currently implemented in most networks.
在任何将提供优质服务的架构中，强烈要求服务是可测量和可持续的。提供该服务将需要网络的一致视图，而不仅仅是当前在大多数网络中实现的设备管理视图。
Management standardization efforts in the IP community have so far been concerned primarily with what is commonly referred to as "element management" or "device management" [5]. Generally there is agreement as to the scope of element management. Once outside that domain efforts to divide that task along clear boundaries have proved
到目前为止，IP社区的管理标准化工作主要关注通常称为“元素管理”或“设备管理”[5]。一般来说，对要素管理的范围存在一致意见。一旦超出该领域，沿着明确边界划分任务的努力已经得到证明
elusive with many of the terms being used having their roots in the telecommunications industry and as such being of potentially limited use for IP management [1]. Confusion resulting from the ambiguity associated with what functions compose management beyond those intended for the element, is compounded by the broad scope for which network and service management standards apply. Terms such a business goals, service management, and application management are not sufficiently defined to insure there will not be disagreement as to the actual scope of the management functions needed and to what extent interrelationships will exists between them.
由于所使用的许多术语都源自电信行业，因此在IP管理方面的使用可能有限[1]。网络和服务管理标准适用的范围很广，这加剧了由于与构成管理的功能的模糊性有关而产生的混乱，这些功能超出了元素的预期功能。业务目标、服务管理和应用程序管理等术语的定义不足以确保在所需管理功能的实际范围以及它们之间的相互关系在多大程度上不会存在分歧。
It is within this hazy domain that much of the recent efforts in rules-based management have been proposed as a potential solution. Efforts to devise a framework for policy management is an example of one of the most popular recent activities. Proposed requirements for policy management look very much like pre-existing network management requirements [2], but specific models needed to define policy itself and related to the definition of policy to control DiffServ and RSVP based QoS are under development.
正是在这一模糊的领域中，最近在基于规则的管理方面所做的许多努力被认为是一种潜在的解决方案。制定政策管理框架的努力是最近最受欢迎的活动之一。提出的策略管理需求看起来非常类似于先前存在的网络管理需求[2]，但定义策略本身所需的特定模型以及与控制区分服务和基于RSVP的QoS的策略定义相关的特定模型正在开发中。
Efforts to define the requirements for a service management system are hindered by the different needs of network operators. In an industry where much has been written about the trend towards convergence there still exist fundamental differences in the business needs of operators.
网络运营商的不同需求阻碍了定义服务管理系统需求的努力。在一个已经有很多关于趋同趋势的文章的行业中，运营商的业务需求仍然存在根本性的差异。
The management requirements from both the operations and the network perspective have some interesting characteristics in the enterprise environment when compared to the public network. In the enterprise end to end traffic management is implemented without the burden of complex tariff issues. Service Level Agreements, while increasing in the enterprise, do not have the same operations impact as in the public network. The high costs associated with implementing non-reputable auditing systems are usually not present. This results in a substantial reduction in the number of expressions necessary to represent a particular networks business model.
与公共网络相比，在企业环境中，运营和网络角度的管理需求具有一些有趣的特征。在企业中，端到端流量管理的实施没有复杂的费率问题的负担。服务级别协议在企业中不断增加，但对运营的影响与在公共网络中不同。通常不存在与实施无信誉审计系统相关的高成本。这导致表示特定网络业务模型所需的表达式数量大幅减少。
In the world of best effort service, rules-based management presents the possibility to give the IT department a tool the make the network appear to not be overloaded by prioritizing traffic. This is done by prioritizing delay sensitive traffic (Web browsing) from traffic that is not delay sensitive (Email) or by prioritizing the traffic from a particular location or source. This will, depending on the composite of an enterprises traffic, increase the useful life of the network
在尽力而为服务的世界中，基于规则的管理为IT部门提供了一种工具，通过对流量进行优先级排序，使网络看起来不会过载。这是通过对来自非延迟敏感流量（电子邮件）的延迟敏感流量（Web浏览）进行优先级排序，或者对来自特定位置或来源的流量进行优先级排序来实现的。这将根据企业流量的组合，增加网络的使用寿命
without adding additional capacity. This does not come without tradeoffs. Both the purchase and management costs associated with the system must be calculated as well as the cost of the added complexity of adding additional control information to the network.
无需增加额外容量。这不是没有权衡的。必须计算与系统相关的采购和管理成本以及向网络添加额外控制信息所增加的复杂性成本。
It has for a long time been a goal of service providers to have a centralized management system. While the motivation for this is very straightforward there exist some fundamental obstacles in achieving this goal. Service providers often do not want to be tied to a single vendor and certainly do not want to be limited to only one model of any single vendors equipment. At the same time bottom line costs are of paramount importance which often result in networks not being as heterogeneous as operators would like. Centralized management implies a scalable system able to manage potentially many heterogeneous pieces of equipment. The amount of data necessary to achieve this is contrary to the scalability requirement. In response to this problem it has been attempted many times to identify the common model that represents the subset common to all devices. Unfortunately all too often this set is either too complex, increasing the cost of devices, or too limited to preclude large amounts of device specific data thus defeating the purpose. For such a management model to be successful at the service level, the services being modeled must be standardized. This is counter intuitive to the competitive model of which the service provider operates. To be successful speed to market has become a key element that differentiates one service provider from another. Constraints placed on equipment manufacturers and the management infrastructure by a centralized management system are also detrimental to this goal. While for a limited set of well defined services a central management approach is feasible, such a system can very quickly become a major contributor to the very problems it was intended to solve.
长期以来，集中管理系统一直是服务提供商的目标。虽然这样做的动机非常简单，但在实现这一目标方面存在一些根本性障碍。服务提供商通常不希望与单一供应商捆绑在一起，当然也不希望仅限于任何单一供应商设备的一种型号。同时，底线成本至关重要，这往往导致网络不像运营商希望的那样异构。集中管理意味着一个可扩展的系统能够管理潜在的许多异构设备。实现这一点所需的数据量与可伸缩性要求相反。针对此问题，已多次尝试确定表示所有设备公用子集的通用模型。不幸的是，这组数据往往过于复杂，增加了设备的成本，或者过于有限，无法排除大量特定于设备的数据，因此无法达到目的。为了使这样一个管理模型在服务级别上获得成功，所建模的服务必须标准化。这与服务提供商运营的竞争模式背道而驰。要取得成功，上市速度已成为区分不同服务提供商的关键因素。集中管理系统对设备制造商和管理基础设施的限制也不利于实现这一目标。虽然对于有限的一组定义良好的服务来说，中央管理方法是可行的，但这样一个系统可以很快成为它打算解决的问题的主要原因。
Currently many of the efforts to define a framework for management are described in very implementation independent terms. In actual fact the implementation of that framework directly affects for what situations the management system will be most beneficial. While many past attempts to define a common management framework have failed it may be in the area of service management that such efforts finally gain industry acceptance. It may be in the domain of service management that information models can be defined that are sufficiently specific to be useful and at that same time not have a negative impact on the equipment or service providers business needs.
目前，定义管理框架的许多工作都是用非常独立于实现的术语描述的。实际上，该框架的实施直接影响到管理系统在何种情况下最为有利。虽然过去许多定义通用管理框架的尝试都失败了，但这些努力最终可能在服务管理领域获得业界的认可。可能是在服务管理领域，可以定义足够具体的信息模型，使其有用，同时不会对设备或服务提供商的业务需求产生负面影响。
This section will discuss some of the issues that need to be resolved with regards to a service management framework to meet the requirements of the modern IP network.
本节将讨论在服务管理框架方面需要解决的一些问题，以满足现代IP网络的要求。
Some of the key concerns looking at a management system architecture include:
管理系统体系结构的一些关键问题包括：
- The management interface and models supported - The management system architecture - Where and how functionality is realized
- 支持的管理界面和模型-管理系统架构-在何处以及如何实现功能
Networks will consist of network elements that have existed prior to efforts to define a standard information model, rules-based or otherwise, and elements deployed after. This problem has been addressed by some of the recent efforts in policy management. Those elements that take into account policy are termed policy aware while those that do not are termed policy unaware. The distinction being made that aware devices can interpret the policy information model or schema. These issues apply equally to other standard management information. In reality it is unlikely that any device will be fully policy aware for long, as the policy information model evolves, early devices will be only policy aware for those aspects of the model that had been defined at the time. Key to success of any management framework is ability to handle revision and evolution. A number methods exists provide this functionality. One is designing the information models so that it can be extended but still be practically used in their original form. A second is to provide an adaptation or proxy layer. Each has advantages and disadvantages.
网络将由定义标准信息模型之前已经存在的网络元素、基于规则或其他方式的网络元素以及之后部署的元素组成。最近在政策管理方面的一些努力已经解决了这个问题。考虑到策略的元素称为策略感知，而不考虑策略的元素称为策略不感知。区别在于感知设备可以解释策略信息模型或模式。这些问题同样适用于其他标准管理信息。事实上，任何设备都不太可能长期具有完全的策略意识，随着策略信息模型的发展，早期设备将只对当时已定义的模型的那些方面具有策略意识。任何管理框架成功的关键是处理修订和演变的能力。有许多方法提供此功能。一种是设计信息模型，使其可以扩展，但仍以原始形式实际使用。第二个是提供适配或代理层。各有利弊。
Methods that attempt to extend the original model often overly constrain themselves. Where the existing model cannot be extended new branches must be formed in the model that contain core management functionality.
试图扩展原始模型的方法常常过度约束自己。如果现有模型无法扩展，则必须在包含核心管理功能的模型中形成新分支。
Adaptation methods can create performance and scalability problems and add complexity to the network by creating additional network elements. A similar situation exists if the management framework is so flexible as to allow network elements to store locally information or choose to have information stored remotely. From a device perspective, the criteria will be if the device can afford the logic based on other requirements it is designed to meet, and if the information can be retrieved in such a way as to support the performance and scalability requirements that are the subject of the information. A dichotomy exists where there will be information that for reasons of performance and scalability will be transferred directly to the network elements in some situations, and in other
自适应方法会产生性能和可伸缩性问题，并通过创建额外的网络元素来增加网络的复杂性。如果管理框架非常灵活，允许网元本地存储信息或选择远程存储信息，则会出现类似情况。从设备的角度来看，标准将是设备是否能够根据其设计满足的其他要求提供逻辑，以及是否能够以支持作为信息主题的性能和可伸缩性要求的方式检索信息。存在一种二分法，即在某些情况下，或在其他情况下，由于性能和可伸缩性的原因，将信息直接传输到网络元素
situations, will exist in the management plan. IP management efforts have left the level of detail needed to define the actual location of the management information to the implementation. In a service management framework it may be necessary to achieve the desired results to supply a more complete framework along the lines of detail provided by the ITU-T telecommunications management network efforts where the interfaces and functionality across interfaces has been clearly defined.
情况，将存在于管理计划中。IP管理工作将定义管理信息的实际位置所需的详细程度留给了实现。在服务管理框架中，可能需要实现预期的结果，以便按照ITU-T电信管理网络工作提供的详细信息提供一个更完整的框架，其中接口和跨接口的功能已经明确定义。
Information will need to exist in multiple locations simultaneously in any network architecture. As the quantity and complexity of that information increases limitations quickly develop. Changes in the information may need to be propagated in close to real time, further adding to the complication.
在任何网络体系结构中，信息都需要同时存在于多个位置。随着信息的数量和复杂性的增加，限制因素迅速发展。信息的变化可能需要接近实时地传播，这进一步增加了复杂性。
A network management framework can be viewed as being divided into two essential functions. The first deals with the aspects of managing the management information while the second deals with the aspects of transferring that management information into the network. The fundamental difference between rules based management and existing network management standards is that the management information is expressed as rules that reflect a desired level of service from the network as opposed to device specific management information. Many of the information management requirements of traditional management systems still apply in a rules-based environment. The network is composed of specific devices and it is at the point where rules are conveyed as device specific management information that this form of management will encounter some of its greatest challenges. A necessary component of a solution to this problem will be a generic information model to which rules can be applied and a framework architecture for distributing rules throughout the network. The task of finding the proper generic model that is not too great a burden to implement and yet provides a level of detail sufficient to manage a network has proved to be historically extremely difficult. In many ways the degree to which rules based management will be able to solve management problems is dependent on the success of efforts to define a generic model and have it be widely implemented [1].
网络管理框架可被视为分为两个基本功能。第一个涉及管理信息的各个方面，而第二个涉及将管理信息传输到网络的各个方面。基于规则的管理与现有网络管理标准之间的根本区别在于，管理信息表示为反映来自网络的期望服务水平的规则，而不是特定于设备的管理信息。传统管理系统的许多信息管理需求仍然适用于基于规则的环境。网络由特定的设备组成，正是在将规则作为特定于设备的管理信息进行传输时，这种管理形式将遇到一些最大的挑战。这个问题的解决方案的一个必要组成部分将是一个通用信息模型，可以应用规则，以及一个用于在整个网络中分发规则的框架体系结构。历史证明，找到一个合适的通用模型是一项极其困难的任务，该模型的实现负担不太大，但提供的详细程度足以管理网络。在许多方面，基于规则的管理能够解决管理问题的程度取决于定义通用模型并使其得到广泛实施的努力的成功程度[1]。
One concept often discussed along with policy deals with the integration of legacy devices into the policy framework. The presumption is that legacy devices would be able to participate in the policy decision by having policy information translated into the native management interface. For this to succeed a device would have to support a functionality for which policy would be specified. This would limit the usefulness of this approach to only information
与策略一起讨论的一个概念涉及将遗留设备集成到策略框架中。假定遗留设备能够通过将策略信息转换为本机管理界面来参与策略决策。为了成功，设备必须支持指定策略的功能。这将限制这种方法仅对信息有用
logically abstracted to the native interface of the device. Given that existing standard management interfaces do not support such functionality, all such devices would need to have a proprietary interface implemented. The interface being based on the existing interface supported by the device would potentially not have the scaling capabilities needed for a policy management system. Unlike a standard network management interface, were management information can be distributed between the adaptation layer and the network element, rules based management information may not be so easily distributed.
逻辑上抽象为设备的本机接口。鉴于现有标准管理接口不支持此类功能，所有此类设备都需要实现专有接口。基于设备支持的现有接口的接口可能不具备策略管理系统所需的扩展功能。与标准网络管理接口不同，如果管理信息可以分布在适配层和网元之间，则基于规则的管理信息可能不那么容易分布。
The framework for integrating rules based management system with existing network devices is not readily apparent and further study is needed. The problem exists further when one considers that there will be early policy aware devices that may not be aware as the policy models are extended. The partially policy aware devices may represent additional architectural issues as it may not be possible to expect consistency in what aspects of policy a given devices implements if there does not exist formal sets of mandatory functionality with clear evolution paths. It is paramount if the policy management framework is going to able to evolve to accommodate the ever-increasing number of services likely to be supported by IP networks of the future that an evolution path be built into the framework.
将基于规则的管理系统与现有网络设备集成的框架尚不明确，需要进一步研究。当考虑到随着策略模型的扩展，早期的策略感知设备可能不感知时，问题进一步存在。部分策略感知设备可能代表额外的架构问题，因为如果不存在具有明确演进路径的正式强制性功能集，则可能无法期望给定设备实现的策略的哪些方面的一致性。如果策略管理框架能够不断发展，以适应未来IP网络可能支持的服务数量不断增加，那么在该框架中构建一条发展路径是至关重要的。
The need for a policy protocol is important in the context of a policy aware element that is performing a certain 'service'. It is important to note here that not all elements will be aware of all service policies related to every service at all times. Therefore it makes sense for an element to be aware of a certain service policy if that element is required for a given service at any instant in time.
在执行特定“服务”的策略感知元素的上下文中，对策略协议的需求非常重要。这里需要注意的是，并非所有元素都会始终知道与每个服务相关的所有服务策略。因此，如果给定服务在任何时刻都需要某个元素，那么该元素了解该服务策略是有意义的。
With the dynamics of a network where elements and links go up and down, a notion of a 'policy protocol' may become necessary. The idea of a 'policy protocol' that runs in a multi-service network requiring multi-service policies. For example; consider two arbitrary end nodes having multiple routing paths between them. Let's then assume that a certain path carries a certain service based on some Intserv bandwidth reservation technique. Let's also then deduce that the elements along that path have some element specific policy statements that have been configured on them to support that requirement. If now at any given instance any link or any element were to be unavailable along that path, the 'policy protocol' should be initiated to automatically go and configure the same service-policies
随着网络的动态变化，元素和链接上下波动，可能需要“策略协议”的概念。在需要多服务策略的多服务网络中运行的“策略协议”的思想。例如考虑两个任意端点，它们之间有多条路由路径。然后，我们假设某条路径承载基于某种Intserv带宽预留技术的特定服务。然后，我们还可以推断，沿着该路径的元素具有一些特定于元素的策略语句，这些语句已配置为支持该需求。如果现在在任何给定实例中，该路径上的任何链接或任何元素都不可用，则应启动“策略协议”以自动转到并配置相同的服务策略
on the elements along another routed path connecting the very same end points, so that there is no disruption in service and so that no human/operator intervention is required.
在元件上沿另一条路由路径连接非常相同的端点，这样就不会中断服务，并且不需要人工/操作员干预。
The association of policy with the policy target is an area where considerable study may need to be done. Some issues are if this needs to be explicitly done or if the policy can be so written that a common description of the target is also included? Allowing a policy target to retrieve those policies that are relevant to it.
政策与政策目标的关联是一个需要进行大量研究的领域。有些问题是，是否需要明确执行此操作，或者策略的编写是否可以包括对目标的通用描述？允许策略目标检索与其相关的策略。
Understanding the set of problems facing IP network management in general will be key in defining a comprehensive framework architecture that meets the needs of operators. Additional risks are created by applying new management techniques to the management of IP networks. The consequence of implementing management operations based on architectures that may not be compatible with existing management systems will still need to be explored.
了解IP网络管理总体上面临的一系列问题将是定义满足运营商需求的综合框架体系结构的关键。将新的管理技术应用于IP网络的管理会产生额外的风险。基于可能与现有管理系统不兼容的体系结构实施管理操作的后果仍需探索。
Given that many network devices in IP networks are making routing decisions based on information received via routing protocols it seems sensible that they also make QoS decisions in a similar fashion.
考虑到IP网络中的许多网络设备都是根据通过路由协议接收到的信息做出路由决策的，因此它们也以类似的方式做出QoS决策似乎是明智的。
Historically the broader the scope of a network management standardization effort the less likely it has been to succeed. Management standardization efforts must be careful to have clearly defined goals and requirements less they to experience the same fate as previous such efforts.
从历史上看，网络管理标准化工作的范围越广，成功的可能性就越小。管理标准化工作必须谨慎，以明确定义目标和要求，减少他们经历与以前类似工作相同的命运。
As IP continues to extend it's concept of service beyond that of best effort to include, among other things, differentiate treatment of packets, it will become increasingly necessary to have mechanisms capable of supporting these extensions. Efforts to define a common management model and framework have proven to be historically elusive. Information models, whether they be traditional or rules-based, must address these past problems. The desire to keep a competitive advantage, and the reality that a common model, to be truly common, will not provide sufficient detail to fully manage a device, has often slowed the acceptance on the part of equipment vendors to this approach.
随着IP继续将其服务概念扩展到尽力而为的服务概念之外，其中包括对数据包的区别对待，因此越来越需要能够支持这些扩展的机制。事实证明，定义共同管理模式和框架的努力在历史上是难以捉摸的。信息模型，无论是传统的还是基于规则的，都必须解决这些过去的问题。保持竞争优势的愿望，以及一个真正通用的通用模型无法提供足够的细节来全面管理设备的现实，常常会降低设备供应商对这种方法的接受程度。
As IP continues to extend it's concept of service beyond that of best effort to include, among other things, differentiate treatment of packets it will become increasingly necessary to have mechanisms capable of supporting these extensions.
随着IP继续将其服务概念扩展到尽力而为的服务概念之外，包括对数据包的区别对待，因此越来越需要能够支持这些扩展的机制。
The exchange of management information in a network is one of the most sensitive from a security perspective. Management protocols must address security to insure the integrity of the data. A management architecture must provide for security considerations from its inception to insure the authenticity of the information provider and that the security mechanisms not be so cumbersome as to make them not feasible to implement.
从安全角度来看，网络中管理信息的交换是最敏感的问题之一。管理协议必须解决安全问题，以确保数据的完整性。管理体系结构必须从一开始就考虑到安全问题，以确保信息提供者的真实性，并且安全机制不会过于繁琐，以至于无法实施。
[1] Michael Eder, Sid Nag, Raj Bansal, "IP Service Management Framework", Work in Progress, October 1999.
[1] Michael Eder，Sid Nag，Raj Bansal，“知识产权服务管理框架”，正在进行的工作，1999年10月。
[2] Hugh Mahon, Yoram Bernet, and Shai Herzog, "Requirements for a Policy Management System", Work in Progress.
[2] Hugh Mahon、Yoram Bernet和Shai Herzog，“政策管理系统的要求”，正在进行中。
[3] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000.
[3] Yavatkar，R.，Pendarakis，D.和R.Guerin，“基于政策的准入控制框架”，RFC 2753，2000年1月。
[4] Huston, G., "Next Steps for the IP QoS Architecture", RFC 2990, November 2000.
[4] Huston，G.“IP QoS架构的下一步”，RFC 29902000年11月。
[5] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets" RFC 1156, May 1990.
[5] McCloghrie，K.和M.Rose，“基于TCP/IP的互联网网络管理的管理信息库”，RFC 1156，1990年5月。
Michael Eder Nokia 5 Wayside Road Burlington, MA 01803
马萨诸塞州伯灵顿路5号迈克尔·埃德尔·诺基亚01803
EMail: michael.eder@nokia.com
EMail: michael.eder@nokia.com
Sid Nag PO Box 104 Holmdel, NJ 07733
新罕布什尔州霍姆德尔104号希德纳格邮政信箱07733
EMail: thinker@monmouth.com
EMail: thinker@monmouth.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2001年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。