Part of my thought process is around OpenNMS. What can I contribute to make the project better.
What I came to realize is that Nodes are monitored on a Node / IP address basis by the majority of products available today. All of the alarms and events are aligned by node - even the sub-object based events get aggregated back to the node level. And for the most part, this is OK. You dispatch a tech to the Node level, right?
When you look at topology at a general sense, you can see the relationship between the poller and the Node under test. Between the poller and the end node, there is a list of elements that make up the lineage of network service components. So, from a service perspective, a simple traceroute between the poller and the end node produces a simple network "lineage".
Extending this a bit further, knowing that traceroute is typically done in ICMP, this gives you an IP level perspective of the network. Note also that because traceroute exploits the time to Live parameter of IP, it can be accomplished in any transport layer protocol. For example, traceroute could work on TCP port 80 or 8080. The importance is that you place a protocol specific responder on the end of the code to see if the service is actually working beyond just responding to a connection request.
And while traceroute is a one way street, it still derives a lineage of path between the poller and the Node under test - and now the protocol or SERVICE under test. And it is still a simple lineage.
The significance of the path lineage is that in order to do some level of path correlation, you need to understand what is connected to what. given that this can be very volatile and change very quickly, topology based correlation can be somewhat problematic - especially if your "facts" change on the fly. and IP based networks do that. They are supposed to do that. They are a best efffort communications methodology that needs to adapt to various conditions.
Traceroute doesn't give you ALL of the topology. By far. Consider the case of a simple frame relay circuit. A Frame Relay circuit is mapped end to end by a Circuit provider but uses T carrier access to the local exchange. Traceroute only captures the IP level access and doesn't capture elements below that. In fact, if you have ISDN backup enabled for a Frame Relay circuit, your end points for the circuit will change in most cases, for the access. And the hop count may change as well.
The good part about tracerouteing via a legitimate protocol is that you get to visualize any administrative access issues up front. For example, if port 8080 is blocked between the poller and the end node, the traceroute will fail. Additionally, you may see ICMP administratively prohibited messages as well. In effect, by positioning the poller according to end users populations, you get to see the service access pathing.
Now, think about this... From a basic service perspective, if you poll via the service, you get a basic understanding of the service you are providing via that connection. When something breaks, you also have a BASELINE with which to diagnose the problem. So, if the poll fails, rerun the traceroute via the protocol and see where it stops.
Here are the interesting things to note about this approach:
- You are simply replicating human expert knowledge in software. Easy to explain. Easy to transition to personnel.
- You get to derive path breakage points pretty quickly.
- You get to discern the perspective of the end user.
- You are now managing your Enterprise via SERVICE!
This approach is an absolute NATURAL for OpenNMS. Let me explain...
Look at the Path Outages tab. While it is currently manually configured, using the traceroute by service lineage here provides a way of visualizing the path lineage.
OpenNMS supports services pollers natively. There are alot of different services out of the box and its easy to do more if you find something different from what they already do.
Look at the difference between Alarms versus Events. Service outages could directly be related to an Alarm while the things that are eventing underneath may affect the service, are presented as events.
What if you took the reports and charts and aligned the elements to the service lineage? For example, if you had a difference in service response, you could align all of the IO graphs for everything in the service lineage. You could also align all of the CPU utilizations as well.
In elements where there are subobjects abstracted in the lineage, if you discover them, you could add those in the lineage. For example, if you discovered the Frame Relay PVCs and LEC access circuits, these could be included in with your visualization underneath the path where they are present.
The other part is that the way you work may need to evolve as well. For example, if you've traditionally ticketed outages on Nodes, now you may need to transition to a Service based model. And while you may issue tickets on a node, your ticket on a Service becomes the overlying dominant ticket in that multiple node problems may be present in a service problem.
And the important thing. You become aware of the customer and Service first, then elements underneath that. It becomes easier to manage to service along with impact assessments, when you manage to a service versus manage to a node. And when you throw in the portability, agility, and abstractness of Cloud computing, this approach is a very logical fit.