Knowledge Graph Framework for Network Operations
draft-mackey-nmop-kg-for-netops-01
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Mackey , Benoît Claise , Thomas Graf , Holger Keller , Daniel Voyer , Paolo Lucente | ||
| Last updated | 2024-10-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-mackey-nmop-kg-for-netops-01
NMOP M. Mackey
Internet-Draft B. Claise
Intended status: Informational Huawei
Expires: 24 April 2025 T. Graf
Swisscom
H. Keller
Deutsche Telekom
D. Voyer
Bell Canada
P. Lucente
NTT
21 October 2024
Knowledge Graph Framework for Network Operations
draft-mackey-nmop-kg-for-netops-01
Abstract
This document describes some of the problems in modern operations and
management systems and how knowledge graphs and RDF can be used to
solve closed loop system, in an automatic way.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/mike-mackey.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 April 2025.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Data Overload from Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Difficulties in Data Analysis and Insight Extraction . . 5
2.3. Complex Data Correlation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Service and Customer Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Data Storage and Format Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6. Contextual Understanding and Relationship Mapping . . . . 6
2.7. Loss of Context in Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8. Data Collection Methods and Interpretation . . . . . . . 7
2.9. Organizational Silos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.10. Multiple Sources of Truths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.11. Machine Readable Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. IETF Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. The Difficult and Costly Data Models Integration with Different
Silos Protocol & Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Understanding And Using Different Models In A Solution . 8
4.2. Example: Onboarding A New Device . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Different Models For Different Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Example: Whats An Interface ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. How To Connect Information For Closed Loop . . . . . . . 11
4.6. The Limits of YANG as THE Model Language . . . . . . . . 11
5. Knowledge Graph Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Knowledge Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Inference Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Formal Ontology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Comprehensive and Dynamic Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. FAIR data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Findability (F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2. Accessibility (A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.3. Interoperability (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.4. Reusability (R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
6.5. Creating And Using FAIR Knowledge Graphs . . . . . . . . 14
7. Introduction to the Semantic Web Technology Stack . . . . . . 16
7.1. URI/IRI: Uniform Resource Identifier/Internationalized
Resource Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. RDF: Resource Description Framework . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.3. RDFS: RDF Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.4. OWL: Web Ontology Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.5. Query: SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language . . . . . . 17
7.6. Validation: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) . . . . . 17
7.6.1. Ensuring Data Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.6.2. Validating Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.6.3. Enforcing Network Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.6.4. Automating Configuration Compliance . . . . . . . . . 18
7.6.5. Error Reporting and Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Why Semantic Web is Right for the Networking World? . . . . . 18
8.1. Handling Vast Amounts of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Improved Data Correlation and Integration . . . . . . . . 18
8.3. Contextual Understanding and Enhanced Metadata . . . . . 19
8.4. Data Interoperability Across Multiple Repositories . . . 19
8.5. Enhanced Fault Prediction and Automated Remediation . . . 20
8.6. Bridging Organizational Silos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.7. Managing Schema and Format Disparities . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Translation of YANG to RDF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Some pointers to existing work for linked data . . . . . 21
9.1.1. NGSI-LD (Next Generation IoT Services Layer -
Lightweight Data) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1.2. TMF921A Intent Management API . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10. Next Steps for the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
13.2. Informative References (to be included) . . . . . . . . 23
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix B. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix C. Resource Description Framework (RDF) schema . . . . 26
Appendix D. SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) . . 26
Appendix E. RESULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix F. SHACL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
1. Introduction
The IAB organized a workshop in June 2002 to establish a dialog
between network operators and protocol developers, to guide IETF when
working on network management protocols and data models. The outcome
of that workshop was documented in the "Overview of the 2002 IAB
Network Management Workshop" [RFC3535] which identified 14 operator
requirements for consideration in future network management protocol
design and related data models, along with some recommendations for
the IETF.
The RFC3535 requirements were instrumental in developing first the
NETCONF protocol (in the NETCONF Working Group) [RFC6241], the
associated YANG data modeling language (in the NETMOD Working Group)
[RFC7950], RESTCONF [RFC8040], and most recently CORECONF
[I-D.ietf-core-comi].
A new IAB workshop, Next Era of Network Management Operations
(NEMOPS), is getting organized to tackle the next big challenges in
the world of network management. Exactly like the previous
workshops, operator challenges and requirements will be documented.
The new set of requirements will hopefully guide the Operational and
Management Area (OPS) https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/ops/about/
future directions.
This document describes the challenges in network operations, and
proposes a new framework based on knowledge graph, to solve (some of)
those operational challenges, mainly how to automatically assure
networks.
As an introduction, let's review the difference between information
model and data model. Quoting RFC 3444 [RFC3444], "The main purpose
of an information model is to model managed objects at a conceptual
level, independent of any specific implementations or protocols used
to transport the data. The degree of specificity (or detail) of the
abstractions defined in the information model depends on the modeling
needs of its designers. In order to make the overall design as clear
as possible, an information model should hide all protocol and
implementation details. Another important characteristic of an
information model is that it defines relationships between managed
objects."
*An information model*, typically expressed in a language such as
Unified Modeling Language (UML) do not generate the full APIs, as it
lacks some of the implementation- and protocol-specific details; for
example, rules that explain how to map managed objects onto lower-
level protocol constructs.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
*A data model*, on the other end, can directly be used for network
automation. As an example, YANG data models [RFC7950] can generate
an APIs, to be accessed by protocols such as NETCONF and RESTCONF.
2. Challenges
This section covers the current operational challenges.
2.1. Data Overload from Network Operations
Modern network operators are inundated with vast amounts of data
generated from various sources within the network. This data
encompasses information from the management plane, control plane, and
data plane. Each contributing to a massive influx of information.
The sheer volume of data is staggering, making it challenging even
for advanced computer systems to process and analyze effectively.
2.2. Difficulties in Data Analysis and Insight Extraction
Data analysts with network domain knowledge play a crucial role in
leveraging this data to predict faults, perform Root Cause Analysis
(RCA), and implement automatic remediation. However, they often
struggle to extract useful information due to the overwhelming
volume, data standardization and complexity of the data. The
challenge lies not only in processing the data but also in finding
meaningful patterns and correlations that can derive actionable
insights.
2.3. Complex Data Correlation Requirements
A significant challenge in modern network operations is the need to
correlate data from different planes - management, control, and data.
Each plane generates its own set of data, often stored in disparate
repositories and formats. Linking this information together is
essential to gain a holistic view of network operations but is
inherently difficult.
2.4. Service and Customer Correlation
Ultimately, all collected data must be correlated back to specific
connectivity services (and its customers). This correlation is
critical for understanding the impact of network events on service
quality and customer experience. However, the process of linking
management plane data with control plane and data plane information,
is to provide a coherent connectivity service with customer
perspective is extremely challenging. Even as a simpler challenge,
it's not always easy to correlate the configuration management plane
information with the streamed operational data: YANG, as a data
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
modeling language simplifies the situation, if used for both config
and streaming but some extra correlation might anyway be required
beyond the data model.
2.5. Data Storage and Format Disparities
Data is frequently stored in multiple repositories, each potentially
using different formats. This fragmentation makes it difficult to
manage the links between different data sets. In some cases, these
links, relationships, may be lost within the engines of the
management and analytics systems, leading to incomplete or incorrect
analyses.
For example, data is stored using a variety of data model languages,
sometimes different schemas for a specific data model language (for
example YANG ), which are sometimes different per router vendors,
often siloed in different applications and storage platforms.
Establishing relationships between this data, especially when
disconnected from the service context and original intent, is
exceedingly difficult. This fragmentation hinders the ability to
maintain a cohesive understanding of network operations and their
impacts on service quality.
2.6. Contextual Understanding and Relationship Mapping
To reduce the problem space and facilitate automated decision-making,
it is essential to understand the context and semantic of the data,
the relationships between different data sets, and how this data
relates to the overall network. By developing a clear understanding
of these relationships, network operators can make more informed and
quicker decisions, which is crucial for achieving autonomous
operations.
2.7. Loss of Context in Data Collection
The context of the collected data is often lost, complicating the
task of network monitoring and analysis. For instance, it can be
challenging to determine what a particular interface represents (in
other words, its role): is it a Provider Edge (PE), Provider (P),
Customer Edge (CE), or an interface on an Autonomous System Boundary
Router (ASBR) (or ABR)? Based on this particular context, the intent
is obviously different, and, as a consequence, this context is key to
interpret the collected data. For example, the IP addresses observed
on CE router, PE router, or P router have different context (and on
the PE router, it actually depends if we refer to CE-facing or PE-
facing interface). As a different example, understanding whether a
link serves as a primary connection for certain customers or a backup
for others is critical but frequently ambiguous.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
2.8. Data Collection Methods and Interpretation
The methods and intervals at which data is collected also vary, which
contributes in adding another layer of complexity. Data might be
sampled within specific time windows, on-change, on-demand, or
periodically. It might represent an aggregation or calculation of
other values. Understanding how the router or analytics engine
computes this data is vital for accurate analysis and
troubleshooting.
2.9. Organizational Silos
In many organizations, network configuration and operations teams
function as separate entities. This division can lead to a
disconnect where the rationale behind network changes is lost or
miscommunicated between teams. This lack of cohesion can further
complicate data correlation and analysis efforts.
2.10. Multiple Sources of Truths
What is the network intent? Is it owned in the controller, or the
current network is the network intent? What if the network is
configured at the same time from the controller and from the CLI (for
quick network anomaly resolution), does it imply that the network
intent is partially in the controller, and partially in the network
state? There are actually multiple sources of truth in networking:
* the controller configuration (intended state)
* the network itself (applied state, described by the Digital Map)
* the inventory, typically stored across different systems, with a
different ID (sometimes UUID [RFC7950])
* the IP Address Management (IPAM) is another other source of truth
* etc.
2.11. Machine Readable Knowledge
While we mentioned multiple data sources, with different data
modeling languages, the requirement is to have one data sources in a
machine readable way, with the ability to correlate and link
information.
Note that, sometimes, the modeling language is simply not existent,
as protocols such as BMP or BGP-LS directly stream PDUs.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
3. IETF Initiatives
To help with the different challenges mentioned in the previous
section, the IETF standardized some RFCs, while some IETF drafts are
currently being worked on:
TO DO: once we have the exact challenge tags, we are going to refer
to those
* Service Assurance for Intent Based Networking [RFC9417] [RFC9418]
* Network Telemetry framework [RFC9232] explains the different
telemetry mechanisms
* draft-ietf-nmop-yang-message-broker-integration-03
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nmop-yang-message-
broker-integration/)
specifies an Architecture for YANG-Push to Message Broker
Integration is helping with the data collection aspects.
* draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-data-manifest
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-collected-
data-manifest/) documents the metadata that ensure that the
streaming collected data can be interpreted correctly.
* draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-architecture
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-
architecture/) defines an architecture for detecting anomalies in
the network
* The basic concepts of the Digital Map are mentioned in draft-
havel-nmop-digital-map-concept (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-havel-nmop-digital-map-concept/)
These are building blocks, to help towards the goals of autonomous
networking. However, these building blocks are not sufficient.
4. The Difficult and Costly Data Models Integration with Different
Silos Protocol & Data Models
4.1. Understanding And Using Different Models In A Solution
Even excluding the vast amount of vendor specific models, the
telecommunication industry is drowning in models from many different
SDOs (IETF, TMF, ETSI, ONF, MEF, 3GPP). All of them fulfill a need
and all of them are optional depending on the requirements of the
solution/operator. Some of the models are designed to be extended,
therefore even though a model is based on a standard it can deviate
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
or add new information. This model and API soup results in confusion
and in some cases (mis)interpretation that can differ per
implementation.
There have been attempts to address this, to converge models and APIs
towards a single model. These initiatives have largely failed.
There are many reasons for this (technical debt, separation of
concerns/responsibility between SDOs) but the reality is that this
remains (and will likely always remain) unachievable. So what is
needed is a way to understand how these different models connect and
how these models were interpreted by the solution designer.
4.2. Example: Onboarding A New Device
In order to onboard a new device, what features and models that
device supports must be known, how that device will map to any
existing internal models for resource management e.g.
https://github.com/Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI/TAPI,
Assurance is mapped to existing assurance and collection models (data
collection/message broker/TSDBs), existing health assurance pipelines
(as described in [draft-ietf-nmop-network-anomaly-architecture]).
If I onboard a new device will it work with my data processing
pipeline If I receive observe a problem in my service, can I trace
quickly to find the related network configuration, if I decide I need
to modify that network configuration do I know the values that must
change at the resource API in order for it to happen.
4.3. Different Models For Different Jobs
On the other side, with different technology domains and different
protocols, come different data models. In order to assure cross
domain use cases, the network management system and network operators
must integrate all the technologies, protocols, and therefore data
models as well. In other words, it must perform the difficult and
time-consuming job of integrating & mapping information from
different data models. Indeed, in some situations, there exist
different ways to model the same type of information.
This problem is compounded by a large, disparate set of data sources:
* MIB modules [RFC3418] for monitoring, * YANG models [RFC7950] for
configuration and monitoring, * IPFIX information elements [RFC7011]
for flow information, * syslog plain text [RFC3164] for fault
management, * TACACS+ [RFC8907] or RADIUS [RFC2865] in the AAA
(Authorization, Authentication, Accounting) world, * BGP FlowSpec
[RFC5575] for BGP filter, * BMP - BGP Monitoring protocol [RFC7854] *
BPG-LS for IGP monitoring * etc. or even simply the router CLI for
router management.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Some networking operators still manage the configuration with CLI
while they monitor the operational states with SNMP/MIBs. How
difficult is that in terms of correlating information? Some others
moved to NETCONF/YANG for configuration but still need to transition
from SNMP/MIBs to Model-driven Telemetry.
When network operators deal with multiple data models, the task of
mapping the different models is time-consuming, hence expensive, and
difficult to automate.
4.4. Example: Whats An Interface ?
To make it crystal clear, let's illustrate this with a very simple
and well known networking concept: a simple interface. Let's start
with a simple CLI command: "show ip interface" for basic interface
information.
* Between MIB module and YANG model, fortunately, we have the same
ifIndex concept (ifIndex in MIB and if-index in YANG). This
facilitates the mapping.
* In the context of IPFIX models, even if the ingressInterface and
egressInterface report the famous ifIndex values within the flow
record, the interface semantic changed. We have one specific
field for the ingress and another one for egress traffic. The MIB
object ifIndex doesn't make that distinction. While it's not
difficult to map the IPFIX interface information elements with the
MIB and YANG interface ones, the different semantic must be
hardcoded in the NMS.
* For the protocols from the AAA world, TACACS+ and RADIUS
interfaces are called "ports" to use the right terminology. Those
have nothing to do with the networking ifIndex definitions, even
if it's perfectly fine to host TACACS+ or RADIUS in routers.
* How to map with interface concept with the syslog message, where
the syslog message might not have the exact same interface id
(Gigabit Ethernet versus gigE versus gigEthernet ... X/Y.Z as an
example) for a machine to read.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
At this point, these concepts are known inside network engineer's
heads, their network domain knowledge, but how to convey this
information to a data scientist lacking the network domain knowledge
but capable to analyze data systematically? The cost of documenting
this information for the different ways it can be configured/used is
enormous. Ideally protocol designers should understand that there
will be an network management/automation cross domain use case that
will require the integration and the potentially mapping of those
different data models.
4.5. How To Connect Information For Closed Loop
Going one step further, understanding that an anomaly defined in
[I-D.netana-nmop-network-anomaly-lifecycle] is connected to a symptom
created by SAIN [RFC9418], which has an alert that defines an
expression based on a set of metrics that are IETF but also vendor
defined. The Service(s) that are experiencing an anomaly defined
using a Service Intent that was defined using /[TMF921A/] but full
filled using [RFC9182] that maps to one or more vendor models.
In order to be able to automate any closed loop action, the
relationship between the Service Intent (defined using /[TMF921A/]),
the error/policy condition that caused the symptom and the
fulfillment provided at the device level via [RFC9182] all have to be
understood.
Many of the operators (at the time of writing) who are trying to
document and manage these relationships are trying to do it using
various spreadsheets and version control systems. Instead, we could
provide a way to define and query those relationships in a manner
that could instantly answer all the questions that an operator has.
What if we could provide this information not only in a format the
operator can understand but in a way a machine can easily interpret
and make decisions.
This is the key to moving from Automation to Autonomy and we believe
one of the keys to unlocking autonomy is to leverage Knowledge
Engineering and Knowledge Based Systems (KBS)
4.6. The Limits of YANG as THE Model Language
While YANG is deployed data model for configuration and monitoring,
YANG has limitations that prevent it to be THE model to which other
data models will be mapped. Instead, we believe that the different
data models will still have a life of their own (ex: the IPFIX model
does a good job for its purpose). Therefore let use introduce
knowledge graph concepts, which will address the challenges.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
TO BE COMPLETED.
5. Knowledge Graph Framework
Addressing these challenges mentioned in section 2 requires
innovative approaches that can handle the scale and complexity of the
data while ensuring accurate correlation and analysis. By leveraging
advanced data management techniques and semantic technologies,
network operators can unlock the full potential of their data, paving
the way for more efficient and autonomous network operations.
Understanding the context and relationships of the data collected is
essential to overcoming the limitations of traditional siloed
approaches and achieving seamless, automated network management.
A knowledge-based system (KBS) is a computer program that leverages a
knowledge base and an inference engine to solve complex problems.
These systems are designed to simulate human decision-making and
problem-solving capabilities, making them valuable tools in various
domains. Here are the key features of a knowledge-based system:
5.1. Knowledge Base
The knowledge base is the core component of a KBS, where all the
explicit knowledge about the domain is stored. This knowledge is
usually represented in a structured and formalized manner to
facilitate easy access and manipulation. Key characteristics of the
knowledge base include:
* *Explicit Representation*: Knowledge is represented in a way that
can be easily interpreted and processed by the system.
* *Structured Data*: Information is organized in a structured
format, such as rules, facts, and relationships.
* *Rich Semantics*: The knowledge base captures not only raw data
but also the meaning and context of that data.
5.2. Inference Engine
The inference engine is the reasoning component of a KBS. It
processes the information stored in the knowledge base to derive new
knowledge, make decisions, or solve problems. Key functions of the
inference engine include:
* *Reasoning*: Applies logical rules to the knowledge base to infer
new information or conclusions.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
* *Decision-Making*: Uses the inferred knowledge to make decisions
or recommend actions.
* *Problem Solving*: Solves complex problems by systematically
exploring possible solutions based on the knowledge base.
In some proposed architectures the inference engine is split into
individual agents that have responsability for a decomposed aspect
of the Service/ Network lifecycle (e.g. anomaly detection,
assurance remediation, solution proposal, solutions evaluation,
solution actuation etc). The Agents (which could be AI Agents)
can communicate/collaborate via the Knowledge Base.
5.3. Formal Ontology
A formal ontology is a crucial element in capturing facts about the
world in which the KBS operates. It provides a structured and formal
description of the concepts and relationships within a specific
domain. Key aspects of formal ontologies include:
* *Concepts and Relationships*: Defines the key concepts and the
relationships between them within a particular domain.
* *Standardized Vocabulary*: Provides a common vocabulary for the
domain, ensuring consistency and interoperability.
* *Formal Specification*: Uses formal logic to specify the
properties and constraints of the concepts and relationships,
allowing for precise and unambiguous interpretation.
5.4. Comprehensive and Dynamic Knowledge
Knowledge-based systems are designed to handle a comprehensive range
of knowledge within their domain and adapt to new information. This
includes:
* *Extensibility*: The ability to add new knowledge and rules to the
system as the domain evolves.
* *Adaptability*: The capability to update and refine the knowledge
base based on new insights or changes in the environment.
* *Integration*: Combining knowledge from multiple sources to
provide a holistic understanding of the domain.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
6. FAIR data
FAIR Data Principles were defined in a 2016 research paper by a
consortium of scientists and organizations in Nature.
The authors intended to provide guidelines to improve the
Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of digital
assets. They have since published their principles in
https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/.
6.1. Findability (F)
Networking systems generate large amounts of configuration,
telemetry, and state data, which needs to be easily discoverable by
network operators, engineers, or automated systems.
6.2. Accessibility (A)
Data within the networking domain needs to be accessible to both
human operators and automated systems, with well-defined access
mechanisms and protocols.
6.3. Interoperability (I)
Networking environments typically involve many devices and protocols
from different vendors. Ensuring interoperability across systems is
crucial for seamless network operations and management.
6.4. Reusability (R)
Reusability ensures that network data can be used and repurposed
across different contexts, applications, and scenarios.
The FAIR principles have been widely cited, endorsed and adopted by a
broad range of stakeholders since their publication in 2016. By
intention, the 15 FAIR guiding principles do not dictate specific
technological implementations, but provide guidance for improving
Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability of
digital resources.
6.5. Creating And Using FAIR Knowledge Graphs
There are two major approaches to implementing knowledge graphs.
Property graphs and RDF. In recent years Property graphs have gained
a lot of traction with successful with companies like Neo4j and
others attempting to standardize on an approach.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Property graphs are great to use in a closed application but face a
number of issues when moving to large scale and open data that are
designed to be FAIR. For example:
* *Schema*: Property Graphs do not have a schema. This can be
considered a positive as well as negative, but having a schema
that you can validate against can limit issues and bugs during
implementations
* *Validation*: Property graphs do not define a way to validate data
but the W3C standard, SHACL (SHApes Constraint Language) to
specify constraints in a model driven fashion.
* *Globally Unique Identifiers*: The identifiers in Property Graphs
are strictly local. They don’t mean anything outside the context
of the immediate database.
* *Resolvable Identifiers*: Because URI/IRIs are so similar to URLs,
and indeed in many situations are URLs it makes it easy to resolve
any item in RDF graph.
* *Federation*: While there are proprietary mechanisms for
federating property graphs across databases e.g. neo4j fabric,
federation is built into SPARQL the W3C standard for querying
“triple stores” or RDF based Graph Databases.
There is ways for these two worlds to converge though, there is
current work within the w3c to add propertys to edges in RDF. This
work RDF-star (https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/
editors_draft.html) (RDF-_) and SPARQL-star (SPARQL-_) at time of
writing is ongoing in the W3C.
Similarly, Neo4j has a plugin "Neosemantics" that enables the use of
RDF data and some of the RDF stack (OWL,RDFS,SHACL) inside of Neo4j
but crucially using Cipher and not SPARQL for querys.
So as of now, RDF Knowledge Graphs have FAIR baked in and are part of
the standard. Property graph approaches have proprietary solutions
to help make things FAIR but there is no standard. These two worlds
and approaches do seem to be converging though.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
7. Introduction to the Semantic Web Technology Stack
The Semantic Web technology stack enables more sophisticated data
integration, sharing, and retrieval across diverse information
systems. At its core, it provides a framework for defining, linking,
and querying data on the web, allowing for more intelligent and
interconnected systems. Here is an overview of the key components of
the Semantic Web technology stack:
7.1. URI/IRI: Uniform Resource Identifier/Internationalized Resource
Identifier
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a unique sequence of
characters that identifies a logical or physical resource used by web
technologies. URIs may be used to identify anything, including real-
world objects such as people and places, concepts, or information
resources like web pages and books. The Internationalized Resource
Identifier (IRI) extends the URI to include a wider range of
characters from different languages, facilitating global use and
interoperability.
7.2. RDF: Resource Description Framework
The Resource Description Framework (RDF) allows you to link resources
(concepts) together in a way that forms a directed graph. For
example, you could represent the statement "John is a person" using
RDF. However, RDF alone does not provide the means to classify
objects or establish complex relationships such as saying that a
person is a subclass of human beings.
7.3. RDFS: RDF Schema
RDF Schema (RDFS) builds upon RDF by providing more expressive
vocabulary to classify resources and establish hierarchical
relationships. Using RDFS, you can define classes and subclasses
(using rdfs:class and rdfs:subclass), and set restrictions on
properties (relationships) within your domain knowledge using
rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. This allows for a more structured and
meaningful representation of data.
7.4. OWL: Web Ontology Language
The Web Ontology Language (OWL) enhances the expressiveness of RDFS
by introducing more detailed and complex constraints on data. OWL
categorizes properties into object properties (relationships between
two resources) and data properties (relationships between a resource
and a data value). It also allows you to add restrictions on
properties, such as specifying cardinality constraints or defining
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
equivalent and disjoint classes, enabling more precise and
sophisticated knowledge representation.
7.5. Query: SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language
SPARQL (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language) is an RDF query
language designed for querying and manipulating data stored in RDF
format. SPARQL is powerful because it can automatically join all
objects in a graph from a single query, allowing for complex and
efficient data retrieval. This capability makes SPARQL an essential
tool for accessing and integrating diverse datasets within the
Semantic Web framework.
Semantic Web technologies have significantly evolved beyond their
initial web-based applications, extending into various industries
(Healthcare, Finance, Manufacturing, Government and Public Sector) as
a powerful means to define, integrate, and retrieve knowledge.
7.6. Validation: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)
SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) can be used to enhance an RDF-
based solution by providing a formal mechanism for validating the
structure, content, and constraints of RDF data that models network
devices, configurations, and relationships.
By using SHACL, you can ensure that the data adheres to predefined
business rules, network policies, and industry standards, thus
improving data quality and consistency within a management system.
7.6.1. Ensuring Data Consistency
For instance, you can use SHACL to enforce that each network device
has a deviceType (e.g., router, switch) and an associated IP address,
and that routers have specific attributes such as a bgpAsn (BGP
Autonomous System Number).
7.6.2. Validating Relationships
For relationships between objects, SHACL allows you to validate these
interconnections by specifying shapes that ensure the correct
relationships are maintained.
7.6.3. Enforcing Network Policies
In network management, policies can dictate how devices are
configured and how they interact. For example, a policy may require
that certain VLANs are used in specific types of networks or that
certain subnets are restricted to specific devices.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
SHACL allows you to encode these policies as constraints and
automatically validate the RDF data against them. For instance, if a
policy requires that only certain VLANs are allowed on specific
switches, you can define a SHACL shape to validate this.
7.6.4. Automating Configuration Compliance
In large-scale networks, automating compliance checks is essential to
ensure devices are configured according to standards and policies.
SHACL can be used to automatically validate the entire RDF dataset
representing network configurations against predefined shapes. This
can flag potential issues such as missing configurations, incorrect
relationships, or policy violations, enabling network administrators
to quickly take corrective action.
7.6.5. Error Reporting and Diagnostics
SHACL provides detailed error reporting and diagnostics, which can
help network administrators quickly identify and fix issues in the
network configuration. For each violation of a SHACL shape, SHACL
can generate meaningful error messages, such as missing required
properties, invalid data types, or relationships that do not conform
to the network topology.
8. Why Semantic Web is Right for the Networking World?
8.1. Handling Vast Amounts of Data
Modern network operators collect extensive data from various network
planes - Management, Control, and Data. Semantic Web technologies
are designed to handle large datasets efficiently:
* *RDF (Resource Description Framework)* enables the modeling of
data as a directed graph, allowing for flexible and scalable data
representation.
* *SPARQL* can efficiently query large datasets, automatically
joining relevant data points to provide comprehensive insights.
* *URI/IRI* allow data to be referenced and enriched using markup/
metadata without modifying the existing systems. Information can
referenced and retrieved using the schema/metadata defined in RDF.
8.2. Improved Data Correlation and Integration
Semantic Web technologies excel at linking disparate data sources and
formats, which is crucial for network operations:
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
* *URI/IRI* provides a unique way to identify and link resources
across different data silos, ensuring that all data points can be
correlated accurately.
* *RDFS (RDF Schema)* and *OWL (Web Ontology Language)* provide
mechanisms to classify and relate data, enabling the creation of
detailed ontologies that represent network components and their
relationships.
8.3. Contextual Understanding and Enhanced Metadata
One of the major challenges is the loss of context in the data
collected from network operations:
* *RDFS* and *OWL* allow operators to define rich metadata about
network elements. For instance, they can specify that an
interface is a Provider Edge (PE) or Customer Edge (CE), and
whether a link is primary or backup.
* *OWL* provides advanced features to define and enforce data
properties and relationships, ensuring that the context of data is
maintained and understood correctly.
8.4. Data Interoperability Across Multiple Repositories
Network data often resides in multiple repositories with different
schemas and formats:
* *RDF* provides a common framework for data representation,
enabling interoperability between diverse data sources.
* *Linked Data principles* can connect data from various
repositories, making it easier to integrate and query across
different systems.
* *Consume Or Reference Data From Multiple Sources in Multiple
Formats* using well known patterns within the semantic web
ecosystem for connecting external databases, whether relational,
hierarchical, tabular or other graph formats.
* *Deterministic URIs* can allow data can be referenced remotely
without being consumed or replicated inside a knowledge store.
Thus allowing only data that is enriched to be created and stored
in the knowledge and for it to reference the existing data in
externally repositories.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
8.5. Enhanced Fault Prediction and Automated Remediation
To predict faults and automate remediation, operators need to link
and analyze data from different network planes:
* *SPARQL* can query across multiple datasets, linking management,
control, and data plane information to provide a holistic view of
the network.
* *OWL & RDF(S)* can define rules, relationships and constraints
that breakdown the barriers between the network planes and link
this data with all relevant information (e.g. context based on
topologies represented by [I-D.havel-nmop-digital-map],
configuration based on network element YANG).
8.6. Bridging Organizational Silos
Network configuration and operations teams often work in silos,
leading to miscommunication and data fragmentation:
* *Ontologies* defined using *RDFS* and *OWL* can standardize the
terminology and relationships used across teams, ensuring
consistent understanding and communication.
* *Semantic annotations* can capture the intent and rationale behind
network changes, preserving context and facilitating better
collaboration. Importing existing schemas (whether from YANG or
Relational or something else) and defining the connections between
them allow the semantic of any object or value to fully known and
traced within the system.
8.7. Managing Schema and Format Disparities
Different data formats (YANG, IPFIX, BMP) and schemas can make data
integration challenging:
* *Semantic Web technologies* provide a unified model to represent
data from various formats, enabling seamless integration and
retrieval.
* *Schema mapping* using *RDF* and *OWL* can reconcile differences
between schemas, providing a coherent view of the data.
It's not only about protocol and models (IETF), we can link to the
NMS/OSS layers, from the top down to the bottom up ... but also
(business) intent, the BSS.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
9. Translation of YANG to RDF
Since the original YANG specification [RFC6020], IETF has embraced
YANG as the way to define any new models or APIs, from the device all
the way up the Service model [RFC8299]. How easy would it be to
convert these vast model set to RDF ?.
RDF has its roots in semantic web and is defined by the w3c, who are
also the owners of the XML standard. The original [RFC6020]
definition for YANG has XML deeply embedded, defining serialization
formats for the YANG (YIN) in XML as well as of course instances of
YANG data used by NETCONF.
Translation of XML to RDF is a well described problem and many tools
exist in order to achieve it, w3c themselves have R2RML that allow
custom definitions of mappings.
Generation of IRIs for YANG schema objects can be created using
schema paths and IRIs for YANG instance data using XPaths. There are
several advantages to this approach, the most important being that
the IRI is deterministic and could be generated externally by a
knowledge system without need to access the real data. There is a
second advantage that it is human readable and therefore easy to
browse.
The main disadvantage being the possible length of IRIs and the
volume of data being processed could be lead to memory/performance
issues. There are obvious trade offs to be explored but it can be
seen that YANG is very much a good fit for modelling as knowledge in
RDF give both formats close association to XML.
9.1. Some pointers to existing work for linked data
Linked data and semantic web has already been embraced by TMF and
ETSI, their reasons for adoption are both valid both for them and for
the IETF when aiming to link data in different systems and to capture
knowledge.
9.1.1. NGSI-LD (Next Generation IoT Services Layer - Lightweight Data)
*NGSI-LD* is an ETSI standardized framework for representing and
managing context information in the Internet of Things (IoT) domain.
*Context Information Model:* Represents context information as
entities with properties and relationships, inspired by property
graphs. *Semantic Foundation:* Based on RDF (Resource Description
Framework) for formal semantics and linked data principles.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
9.1.2. TMF921A Intent Management API
*TMF tmf921a* is an API for intent based networking. It aims to
provide a standardized interface for expressing and managing high-
level network intents, enabling automated network configuration and
optimization.
*Knowledge Based Reasoning:* Core to the TMF approach is the ability
for the intent management functions to "use reason intrinsically by
examining the relationships between facts". Therefore their decision
to model the intents as knowledge and to use *RDF* to define the
intents.
10. Next Steps for the Industry
It's important to note, the authors are not proposing creating a new
model for the network, there is much work being done in all of the
existing SDOs with numerous models managing all aspects of the
network and business. The authors are proposing ways to connect all
of this data and through those connections find the semantic of the
information and allow it to unlock the knowledge already being
generated by the network.
To this end, the industry must come together to define ways to
describe the connections between data (either at the instance level
or at the schema level). Agree on formats for importing existing
protocol schemas into RDF e.g. in IETF: YANG, IPFIX, BMP but also
other models in different SDOs
Crucial to this is to define a way to create deterministic IRIs for
both model and instance data so that information in disparate systems
and repositories can be referenced, linked and enriched using the
power of Knowledge graphs and linked data.
11. Security Considerations
TBC
12. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
13. Reference
13.1. Normative References
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
13.2. Informative References (to be included)
* RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 2014.
* RDF Schema 1.1. W3C Recommendation, 2014.
* OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview. W3C
Recommendation, 2012.
* SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation, 2013.
* SHACL - Shapes Constraint Language. W3C Recommendation, 2017.
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.havel-nmop-digital-map]
Havel, O., Claise, B., de Dios, O. G., Elhassany, A., and
T. Graf, "Modeling the Digital Map based on RFC 8345:
Sharing Experience and Perspectives", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-havel-nmop-digital-map-02, 21
October 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-havel-nmop-digital-map-02>.
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Van der Stok, P., Pelov, A., Bierman, A.,
and C. Bormann, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-18,
23 July 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-core-comi-18>.
[I-D.netana-nmop-network-anomaly-lifecycle]
Riccobene, V., Roberto, A., Graf, T., Du, W., and A. H.
Feng, "Experiment: Network Anomaly Lifecycle", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-netana-nmop-network-
anomaly-lifecycle-04, 21 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-netana-nmop-
network-anomaly-lifecycle-04>.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2865>.
[RFC3164] Lonvick, C., "The BSD Syslog Protocol", RFC 3164,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3164, August 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3164>.
[RFC3418] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Management Information Base (MIB) for
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
RFC 3418, DOI 10.17487/RFC3418, December 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3418>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3444>.
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, DOI 10.17487/RFC3535, May
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3535>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5575>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7854>.
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8299] Wu, Q., Ed., Litkowski, S., Tomotaki, L., and K. Ogaki,
"YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery", RFC 8299,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8299, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8299>.
[RFC8907] Dahm, T., Ota, A., Medway Gash, D.C., Carrel, D., and L.
Grant, "The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control
System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol", RFC 8907,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8907, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8907>.
[RFC9182] Barguil, S., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Boucadair, M.,
Ed., Munoz, L., and A. Aguado, "A YANG Network Data Model
for Layer 3 VPNs", RFC 9182, DOI 10.17487/RFC9182,
February 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9182>.
[RFC9232] Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and
A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", RFC 9232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9232, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9232>.
[RFC9417] Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lopez, D., Voyer, D., and T.
Arumugam, "Service Assurance for Intent-Based Networking
Architecture", RFC 9417, DOI 10.17487/RFC9417, July 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9417>.
[RFC9418] Claise, B., Quilbeuf, J., Lucente, P., Fasano, P., and T.
Arumugam, "A YANG Data Model for Service Assurance",
RFC 9418, DOI 10.17487/RFC9418, July 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9418>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Peter Cautley and Anatolii Pererva
for providing the appendix example. Professor Declan O'Sullivan and
Brad Peters for providing review comments.
Appendix B. Appendix
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Appendix C. Resource Description Framework (RDF) schema
The RDF Schema defines the different types of relationship (RDF
properties). They are defined hierarchically. That allows specific
relationships to be grouped as more generalized relationships.
Queries can be applied at different levels of specificity.
:ipfixRefersTo a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:comment "IPFIX reference to a leaf" ;
rdfs:subPropertyOf :refersTo .
:ipfixRefersToInterface a rdf:Property ;
rdfs:comment "IPFIX reference to a leaf" ;
rdfs:subPropertyOf :ipfixRefersTo .
Appendix D. SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL)
SPARQL finds different relationships that exist between data sources
e.g. The relationship "ipfixRefersToInterface" (defined in the RDF
schema) will find relationships between any IPFIX data field and the
Device Interface. A more generalized relationship "ipfixRefersTo"
would find all known relationships between IPFIX and Device
(underlay, overlay) Configuration.
PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>
PREFIX yang: <http://localhost/yang#>
SELECT ?source_path ?relationship ?target_path
WHERE {
?source ?relationship ?target .
?relationship rdfs:subPropertyOf* yang:ipfixRefersToInterface .
?source yang:path ?source_path .
?target yang:path ?target_path .
}
Appendix E. RESULT
The result for the above query shows - the source: IPFIX fields
aligned with IANA "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" -
ingressInterface element Id 10 - egressInterface element Id 14 - the
type of relationship: (specified in the RDF schema) - the target:
YANG path specified in Device Configuration
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| source | relationship | target |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| "ingressInterface" | <http://localhost/yang#ipfixRefersToInterface> | "ifm/interfaces/interface/index" |
| "egressInterface" | <http://localhost/yang#ipfixRefersToInterface> | "ifm/interfaces/interface/index" |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Appendix F. SHACL
SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) can be used to enhance an RDF-
based solution for network management by providing a formal mechanism
for validating the structure, content, and constraints of RDF data
that models network devices, configurations, and relationships. By
using SHACL, you can ensure that the data adheres to predefined
business rules, network policies, and industry standards, thus
improving data quality and consistency within a network management
system.
Example of SHACL to validate every router that uses the BGP protocol
has a valid BGP ASN configured. ~~~~ ex:BGPComplianceShape a
sh:NodeShape ; sh:targetClass ex:Router ; sh:property [ sh:path
ex:routingProtocol ; sh:hasValue "bgp" ; ] ; sh:property [ sh:path
ex:bgpAsn ; sh:minCount 1 ; sh:datatype xsd:integer ; sh:message
"Routers using BGP must have a BGP ASN defined." ; ] ; ~~~~
SHACL can also be used to validate relationships between objects,
here is an example of a rule that says each router must be connected
to at least one switch.
ex:RouterSwitchConnectionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
sh:targetClass ex:Router ;
sh:property [
sh:path ex:connectedTo ;
sh:class ex:Switch ;
sh:minCount 1 ;
sh:message "Each router must be connected to at least one switch." ;
] ;
Authors' Addresses
Michael Mackey
Huawei
Ireland
Email: michael.mackey@huawei.com
Benoit Claise
Huawei
Belgium
Email: benoit.claise@huawei.com
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Knowledge Graph NetOps October 2024
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binring 17
CH-8045 Zurich
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Holger Keller
Deutsche Telekom
Germany
Email: Holger.Keller@telekom.de
Dan Voyer
Bell Canada
Canada
Email: daniel.voyer@bell.ca
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Veemweg 23
3771 Barneveld
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Mackey, et al. Expires 24 April 2025 [Page 28]