Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Realizing Network Control Policies Using Distributed Action Plans

  • Published:
Journal of Network and Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increasing complexity in size and heterogeneity of networks requires the development of network management tools that are less dependent on human intervention. Many tasks in network management consist of the coordination and execution of multiple activities across different network platforms. In the first part of this paper we introduce a language to write Distributed Action Plans (DAPs). A DAP is meant to specify one of these distributed network management tasks. To run these plans we use policy agents. These are agents that can be specified in PDL, an event-driven programming language developed at Bell Labs to perform policy-based network management. The second half of the paper shows how DAPs are translated into PDL and describes the policy agent system that executes these DAPs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. R. Wies, Policies in network and system management—formal definition and architecture, Journal of Network and System Management, 2(1):63–83, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Z. Hasan, An active temporal model for network management databases, IFIP/IEEE fourth International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, pp. 524–535, Santa Barbara, California, May 1995.

  3. A. Leinwand and K. F. Conroy, Network Management: A Practical Perspective, Addison Wesley, Second Edition, 1996.

  4. J. Lobo, R. Bhatia, and S. Naqvi, A policy description language, Proc. of AAAI/IAAI, pp. 291–298, Orlando, Florida, July 1999.

  5. The Workflow Management Coalition, Terminology and Glossary, Technical Report WFMC-TC-1011, The Workflow Management Coalition, June 1996.

  6. S. Abiteboul, V. Vianu, B. Frodham, and Y. Yesha, Relational transducers for electronic commerce, Proc. 17th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Seattle, Washington, June 1998, pp. 179–187.

  7. J. D. Ullman, Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Vol.I, Computer Science Press, 1988.

  8. M. Kamath and K. Ramamritham, Failure handling and coordinated execution of concurrent workflows, International Conference on Data Engineering, Orlando, Florida, pp. 334–341, February 1998.

  9. M. Kohli and J. Lobo, Workflow in Network Management, Technical Report, Bell Labs, 1999.

  10. R. Bhatia, J. Lobo, and M. Kohli, Policy evaluation for network management, Proc. INFOCOM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 1107–1116, March 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Chomicki, J. Lobo, and S. Naqvi, Conflict resolution using logic programming, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol.15, No.(1), pp. 244–249, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Virmani, J. Lobo, and M. Kohli, Netmon: Network management for the SARAS softswitch, Proc. IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, Honolulu, Hawaii, pp 803–816, April 2000.

  13. T. C. Son and J. Lobo, Reasoning about policies, Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Anser Set Programming: Towards Efficient and Scalable Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 210–216, March 2001.

  14. M. P. Singh, Formal Aspects of Workflow Management, Part 1: Semantics, Technical Report TR–96–08, North Carolina State University, 1997.

  15. H. Davulcu, M. Kifer, C. R. Ramakrishnan, and I. V. Ramakrishnan, Logic based modeling and analysis of workflows, Proc. 17th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Seattle, Washington, pp. 25–33, June 1998.

  16. A. Bonner, Workflow, transactions and datalog, Proc. 18th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 294–305, May-June 1999.

  17. A. Bonner and M. Kifer, Concurrency and communication in transaction logic, Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, MIT Press, Bonn, Germany, pp. 142–156, September 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. C. Boutilier and R. I. Brafman, Planning with concurrent interacting actions, Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, Providence, Rhadhe Island, pp. 720–726, July 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. S. Weld, An introduction to least commitment planning, AI Magazine, Vol.15, No.4, pp. 27–61, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bell Labs, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey, 07974

    Madhur Kohli

  2. Teltier Technologies, 60 Walnut Avenue, Clark, New Jersey, 07066

    Jorge Lobo

Authors
  1. Madhur Kohli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Lobo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madhur Kohli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kohli, M., Lobo, J. Realizing Network Control Policies Using Distributed Action Plans. Journal of Network and Systems Management 11, 305–327 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025715306518

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025715306518

Search

Navigation