Are you ready for tmn?

Through a convergence of technological and marketplace forces, the time for Telecommunications Management Network may finally be at hand.

Stephen Hardy Editor in Chief

So you`re sitting in your network manager`s chair deep within the headquarters of Megalomania Carrier Services Corp., patting yourself on the back because you think you`ve finally installed enough fiber-optic equipment to keep your bandwidth-chomping customers at bay for at least the next week and a half. You`ve got wavelength-division add/drop multiplexers, digital crossconnects, optical amplifiers, digital-loop carrier systems, and enough Synchronous Optical Network rings to open a telecommunications jewelry store--plus you have another eight rings coming, thanks to Megalomania`s recent acquisition of Littlefish Communications. And you`re feeling pretty good about yourself--until you realize that you somehow have to monitor the performance of all this new equipment that has suddenly quadrupled the network complexity faced by your small army of network administrators, each of whom is already overseeing a different, proprietary network management architecture. Then word arrives that the switches in Littlefish`s network were supplied by a systems house in Lichtenstein that has since gone into the strudel business....

The unprecedented complexity of today`s telecommunications networks has many managers searching for a new method of managing their infrastructure. These managers have previously relied on one or more network management architectures that were tied to a specific vendor`s equipment; frequently, these architectures proved incompatible with the proprietary network management approaches required to oversee equipment from other vendors also represented in the network. To meet the growing requirement for more-rational network management, several vendors and users have turned to a set of standards first identified within what is now the International Telecommunication Union (itu) in the late 1980s. Called Telecommunications Management Network (tmn), this set of standards promises to provide the multivendor, integrated management required in today`s telecommunications environment--if technical and implementation hurdles can be overcome.

Nothing is easy

Few areas in telecommunications are more complicated than network management. It should therefore come as no surprise that finding a simple way to describe tmn is like trying to explain the tax code in 75 words or less. Briefly, the tmn standards emerged out of the itu Telecommunication Standardization Sector (itu-t) during the 1988 to 1992 Study Period. The standards, which address operations, administration, and maintenance (oam), were designed to be flexible enough to accommodate networks of varying sizes, extendable to meet evolving network and standards developments, and open to allow the management of multivendor and multitechnology networks.

The tmn guidelines can be considered from three primary viewpoints. The first of these is as an architecture that divides the concept of management into layers and groups of functions. These functional layers correspond to the operations within an organization. They include Business Management, Service Management, Network Management, and Element Management. (Some descriptions of tmn include the Network Elements themselves as an additional layer.) Some people find it helpful to think of the first two layers as focusing on the customer care aspects of oam and the other layers as pertaining to network and element management aspects.

Second, tmn provides a way of defining the management behavior of managed devices. This object-oriented methodology derives from the Open Systems Interconnection (osi) model and is known as the Guidelines for the Definition of Managed Objects (gdmo). gdmo/asn.1, which provides common information modeling tools, is an example.

Third, tmn contains a set of protocols that enables management information to pass between systems. Again, this set of protocols is based on the osi model. Interfaces internal to the network in question are known as "Q" interfaces (the best-known of these is Q3), while interfaces between managed networks are known as "X" interfaces. The protocol set most closely associated with distributed processing and related functions within tmn is known as the Common Management Information Protocol (cmip).

In this context, one frequently encounters the acronym "fcaps" when reading about network management based on osi principles. Therefore, the explication of fcaps--Fault Management, Configuration Management, Accounting Management, Performance Management, and Security Management--frequently appears in tmn discussions.

One also can slice tmn into thirds from a different perspective. Here, tmn can be seen as

a functional architecture that describes

the functional requirements of a managed network in terms of management function blocks (for example, an Operations Systems Function block and a Network Element Function block). These blocks are separated by reference points, which are the Q interfaces described above. Q3 provides the reference point between the Operations Systems and Network Element functions blocks.

a physical architecture that describes

the equipment used to implement a managed network separated by interoperable interfaces. Again, the Q3 interface applies in this context.

an information architecture that

describes the information necessary to perform the managed network functions in terms of managed objects.

To implement a managed network from this perspective, the network management provider must identify the appropriate reference points in the functional architecture as interoperable interfaces in the physical architecture; select a distribution processing technology for implementing the interface; and develop an information model that reflects the required management functions.

However you slice it, tmn isn`t easy. However, it does work. So if you have a flexible, multivendor, osi-based network management scheme, you would think folks would be lining up to apply it to their networks, right? Well, this hasn`t been the case for reasons with both technological and marketplace roots.

The first technological hurdles, surprisingly enough, come from what should be one of tmn`s strengths: its implementation of osi modeling as encapsulated within cmip.

"The technologies being promoted for tmn in the past have been very telecommunications-industry specific," explains John Omura, manager of imn business development at Nortel, Brampton, ON, Canada. imn is Nortel`s network management approach; it is tmn-compatible, but it incorporates additional features and approaches. "For example, cmip is a protocol that is really designed and implemented by telecommunications-specific vendors. It`s very powerful and it has very advanced protocol-related features--but at a cost. It`s fairly heavyweight technology to deploy. And because of the limited amount of customers, the cost has always been very high." This high cost has opened the market door for competing network management approaches that use other distributed processing protocols, such as Simple Network Management Protocol.

In addition, according to a white paper written by Nortel, tmn implementation also has been hampered by the difficulty of mapping cmip and gdmo/asn.1 to popular object-oriented programming languages. The fact that there are two versions of asn.1, neither of which is similar to the languages programmers are used to using, such as C++, has also proven to be a problem.

As cumbersome as these technical issues may be, the real obstacles to tmn deployment reside within the traditional telecommunications network environment, where a single-vendor shop--complete with the single vendor`s proprietary management product--has been something of a tradition. And it`s tough to buck tradition.

"For the last few years, [network managers] wanted to keep their installed systems in place, and they feel a bit uncomfortable in implementing major changes to their networks and changes to their network management applications," says Michael Droemmer, product manager of fiber management solutions at Hewlett-Packard Boblingen Instruments Div., Boblingen, Germany. Hewlett-Packard`s OpenView network management system is based on tmn. "Very often, those installations are very proprietary and cannot be migrated to the new standards without pain. So very often they have a huge installed network composed of components from several suppliers, and those have very often a proprietary management solution."

"A lot of it is the inertia of legacy systems," agrees Omura. "Let`s face it: Many of the Bell operating companies are running their networks on large, mainframe-based systems, probably programmed in cobol and other older programming languages where a lot of the expertise behind maintaining that code is either retired or moved on. And I think it`s a big problem for the large carriers to really maintain their systems in a cost-effective way. And I think that`s one reason that things have slowed down, because of just the inertia of being locked into a mainframe-type environment."

Meanwhile, most of the vendors who have enjoyed a captive audience for their network management products are in no hurry to open the door for competing systems. These vendors won`t jump on the tmn bandwagon; they`ll have to be pushed. As Joshua Morris, a director within mci`s network systems development group, puts it, "I guess if you`re sitting in the vendors` business, they`re looking for their customers to drive [tmn demand] from a `this is how we want to operate our business more effectively` [perspective] and therefore there is a market for it."

The tide turns

Customers like Morris are beginning to preach that tmn gospel to their vendors, mainly because the realities of today`s networking environment have forced companies to rethink how they manage their legacy systems. Simultaneously, the evolution of the telecommunications marketplace--where mergers and acquisitions as well as rapid network expansion have made multivendor network environments more common--has heightened the appeal of tmn.

For example, Morris reports that because mci`s network grew so rapidly, he found himself with six different systems that provided some sort of transport network fault management. The management of numerous different technologies without an in-depth knowledge of each technological area proved a significant challenge. The time is ripe for a new approach that rationalizes the management of these different technologies in a standard form, says Morris. "tmn offers the promise of standardizing some of that and providing a framework within which that standardization can occur so that we can focus less on how to deal with specific differences in network technologies and begin managing them truly as a network," he says.

Thus, mci has created impact, a tmn-based network management architecture that it will first apply to its fiber-optic transport network. The architecture will be based on the temip product from Digital Equipment Corp., Maynard, MA. And the tmn-based impact will enable Morris to extend his "don`t-fence-me-in" approach beyond network elements to the network management equipment itself. "Because we`re not really focused on any one particular vendor/supplier, one of the things that tmn promises and looks like it`s beginning to deliver is the capability to use not only multiple network technologies, but also different operational support systems that will tie together and play together," he explains. "So while we`re using Digital Equipment`s temip in our first implementation, we`ll be integrating it with ibm`s technology and Sun`s technology within the next two years. So we`re really looking at interoperable systems and using the best-of-breed technology to deliver benefit to our business--and that benefit really is reducing operational costs and making our network availability better than anyone else."

Morris predicts that mci will save more than $4 million from consolidating his six network management systems into one and being able to accommodate future network expansion without adding management personnel.

Meanwhile, other forces have created an environment receptive to tmn. "I think you might see that a sudden increase in tmn-related news and activity is being triggered by the U.S. Telecommunications Act [of 1996], which has opened up the market," says Omura. "The [regional Bells] are now forced to open up the gate, and the new entrants are looking for some guidance. I think that tmn is giving them some strong guidance for them to go ahead and build their network management support structures as rapidly and cost-effectively as possible."

Droemmer sees this trend as well. "The people who are following the tmn concept are usually relying on aspects like multivendor compliance and the completeness of the management approach. Very often, those are companies that don`t have, for now, a very large installed base consisting of old, nonmanageable, noncompliant infrastructure," he says. "The new companies--companies building up infra-structure right now--want to be safe for future enhancement of their networks, without being tied to any proprietary solution delivered by one manufacturer at a specific time. And therefore they follow the tmn approach."

Meanwhile, industry is banding together to address some of the technological bumps in tmn`s road. The Network Management Forum, in particular, has been active in this area, creating what it calls Solution Sets and Component Sets to make it easier to specify and implement tmn standards within today`s networks. It also has fostered the Smart tmn initiative, which provides a closer correlation between business and operations processes and the tmn standards. The Smart tmn effort also includes investigations of tmn variations.

corba architecture

One such investigation that appears to hold significant promise is using Common Object Request Broker Architecture (corba) as an alternative to cmip. According to Omura, whose company`s imn product is based on corba, the architecture provides a backplane that "rides on top" of operating systems such as unix to help make software applications platform-independent. This would not only enable tmn to be more easily implemented on legacy systems, but also it would make tmn more compatible with other network management approaches.

corba also has economic benefits over cmip, according to Omura. "The cost of developing and implementing corba is being shared among the whole unix and mainframe industries," he explains, "whereas the cost of the earlier tmn-supporting technologies such as cmip was being borne by a small amount of vendors for a not ubiquitous set of customers. And I think that what is going on now is that the architectural values of tmn are still very relevant. The new information technologies and the power of lower-cost platforms such as high-end PCs are making this stuff a lot more affordable, [all of which] changes the business-case equation."

Morris also sees the potential of corba with tmn. "A couple of years ago, the vision was that, yes, this [osi-based] manager/agent relationship that is in tmn would flow all the way up and down the layers of the model, from the business layer down to the network layer. And I think we`ve learned that that is probably not going to be the best way to implement that," he says. "So certainly between the network element and the operational support system for the network layer, the osi model still applies. Above that, we`re going to be looking at the incorporation of the corba technology to enable more peer-to-peer utilization of the information from the network in a much more flexible way."

The next big thing

Thanks to rising customer demand for multivendor operation and the potential removal of some of the technical barriers to implementation, vendors are starting to add tmn to their product portfolios. "In the last few years, companies such as ibm, Digital Equipment, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun have taken that leap and are providing the capabilities to implement tmn-based systems," says Morris, who adds that several network transport equipment manufacturers are adding Q3 interfaces to their products. "And now we`re fortunately able to use that technology and drive our network equipment vendors to begin adding those capabilities so that we can realize some of [tmn`s] promise."

Industry certainly is aware of the approaching tmn juggernaut`s potential to control a significant share of the network management market. "That certainly is my view," Omura offers. "It`s a very sensible architecture with respect to managing a telecommunications network. And the concept has been around for more than 10 years now. I think it has gotten a lot of visibility and understanding within the industry and it`s something that can be mapped onto both new products in a very strategic way and onto older legacy systems to understand where the points of interface need to be. So it`s useful in both legacy and new technology environments."

That said, implementing tmn today requires significant planning and effort, according to Morris. "It is a challenge to implement these [new tmn approaches]. Many of the technologies coming onto the market in terms of operational support system capabilities are pretty good--but it is an investment to get this up and running," he says. "Many of the operational support systems are tool kits. So that while tmn provides the framework, you pretty much have to do the implementation. So it`s not necessarily an off-the-shelf kind of product."

tmn implementation should become easier as more companies investigate its use. Certainly, the time for tmn seems to have arrived. "We`re sort of at a convergence right now. With the new competition injected by the Telecom Act and the opening of the legacy systems, guidance is needed right now. And I think tmn offers guidance at the right time and at the right place," concludes Omura. "From a technology point of view, the combination of a tmn architecture and distributed computing technologies that are cost-effective and mainstream--such as corba and Java Web-based user interfaces--presents a golden opportunity to both meet the new entrants` requirements to build operations support systems in a hurry, as well as to help the incumbent local exchange carriers modernize their systems such that they can remain competitive." u