WO2002045315A2 - Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation - Google Patents
Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2002045315A2 WO2002045315A2 PCT/US2001/043140 US0143140W WO0245315A2 WO 2002045315 A2 WO2002045315 A2 WO 2002045315A2 US 0143140 W US0143140 W US 0143140W WO 0245315 A2 WO0245315 A2 WO 0245315A2
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- service
- outage
- usage
- change
- event
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
- G06Q30/02—Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
- G06Q30/0283—Price estimation or determination
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L41/00—Arrangements for maintenance, administration or management of data switching networks, e.g. of packet switching networks
- H04L41/06—Management of faults, events, alarms or notifications
- H04L41/0631—Management of faults, events, alarms or notifications using root cause analysis; using analysis of correlation between notifications, alarms or events based on decision criteria, e.g. hierarchy, tree or time analysis
- H04L41/064—Management of faults, events, alarms or notifications using root cause analysis; using analysis of correlation between notifications, alarms or events based on decision criteria, e.g. hierarchy, tree or time analysis involving time analysis
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L41/00—Arrangements for maintenance, administration or management of data switching networks, e.g. of packet switching networks
- H04L41/14—Network analysis or design
- H04L41/147—Network analysis or design for predicting network behaviour
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L41/00—Arrangements for maintenance, administration or management of data switching networks, e.g. of packet switching networks
- H04L41/50—Network service management, e.g. ensuring proper service fulfilment according to agreements
- H04L41/5003—Managing SLA; Interaction between SLA and QoS
- H04L41/5019—Ensuring fulfilment of SLA
- H04L41/5025—Ensuring fulfilment of SLA by proactively reacting to service quality change, e.g. by reconfiguration after service quality degradation or upgrade
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L43/00—Arrangements for monitoring or testing data switching networks
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L43/00—Arrangements for monitoring or testing data switching networks
- H04L43/10—Active monitoring, e.g. heartbeat, ping or trace-route
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L41/00—Arrangements for maintenance, administration or management of data switching networks, e.g. of packet switching networks
- H04L41/20—Network management software packages
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L41/00—Arrangements for maintenance, administration or management of data switching networks, e.g. of packet switching networks
- H04L41/50—Network service management, e.g. ensuring proper service fulfilment according to agreements
- H04L41/5003—Managing SLA; Interaction between SLA and QoS
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L43/00—Arrangements for monitoring or testing data switching networks
- H04L43/08—Monitoring or testing based on specific metrics, e.g. QoS, energy consumption or environmental parameters
- H04L43/0805—Monitoring or testing based on specific metrics, e.g. QoS, energy consumption or environmental parameters by checking availability
- H04L43/0817—Monitoring or testing based on specific metrics, e.g. QoS, energy consumption or environmental parameters by checking availability by checking functioning
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L43/00—Arrangements for monitoring or testing data switching networks
- H04L43/10—Active monitoring, e.g. heartbeat, ping or trace-route
- H04L43/106—Active monitoring, e.g. heartbeat, ping or trace-route using time related information in packets, e.g. by adding timestamps
Definitions
- the invention disclosed herein relates to the field of fault event correlation and assessment in computerized services such as telecommunications networks or application programs. More particularly, the invention relates to methods, systems, and software for determining likely causes of service outages and assessing the costs of the service outages.
- the invention described herein is useful in correcting service outages, preventing future occurrences of similar service outages, and determining the appropriate level of resources which should be allocated to correct and prevent such outages.
- Maintaining the proper operation of various types of computerized services is usually an important but difficult task.
- Service administrators are often called upon to react to a service failure by identifying the problem which caused the failure and then taking steps to correct the problem.
- administrators must make accurate assessments as to the causes of failures. Because substantial time and resources are often required, administrators must also make accurate decisions as to when to allocate resources to the tasks of identifying problems and fixing them.
- the NETCOOL® suite of applications available from Micromuse Inc., assignee of the present application, which allows network administrators to monitor activity on networks such as wired and wireless voice communication networks, intranets, wide areas networks, or the Internet.
- the NETCOOL suite logs and collects network events, including network occurrences such as alerts, alarms, or other faults, and then reports them to network administrators in graphical and text based formats. Administrators are thus able to observe network events on a real-time basis and respond to them more quickly.
- the NETCOOL suite also includes network service monitors of various types which measure performance of a network so that, among other things, network resources can be shifted as needed to cover outages.
- U.S. Patent No. 5,872,91 1 to Berg describes a system that monitors a telecommunications network for faults and assesses fault data to determine the likely cause of the fault.
- the system accomplishes this by filtering and reducing the full set of fault data based on a correlation of various faults or alarms. The correlation is performed using a rules- based engine or knowledge base which determines or defines relationships among types of faults.
- the system uses the filtered and reduced fault data to determine actual service impact on the network by determining whether a network outage occurred as a result of the fault.
- the system further determines which customers or equipment are affected by the network outage using conventional mechanisms which track network traffic.
- 5,748,098 to Grace describes a system which uses stored historical data concerning alarms and when they occur to determine the probability of a relationship between events occurring within a window of time.
- the window of time is either fixed or determined with reference to the nature of the network or the stored historical data.
- Additional patents including U.S. Patent No. 5,646,864 to Whitney, U.S. Patent No. 5,661,668 to Yemini, and U.S. Patent No. 6,049,792 to Hart, describe still further schemes for attempting to correlate and relate network faults or alarms using expert systems, logic models, or complex causality matrices.
- a service outage or failure is intended to include not only total failures and complete losses of service but also reductions in level of a service to a level considered to be unacceptable or requiring corrective action.
- the method further involves detecting an event and a time in which the event occurred, and computing a probability that the detected event caused the service change based at least in part on a relation between the event time and the service change time window.
- the present invention provides a significant improvement over prior attempts to correlate faults or alarms in a number of ways. For example, in certain aspects of the present invention, three items of information are taken - service quality, service usage, and events - and they are correlated in the time domain, based only on their times. In addition, using both the service quality and service usage data to define a service change time window which is likely to contain or near the cause of a service outage the correlation between the detected event and the service outage.
- the method is applicable to various types of computerized services, including: telecommunication networks such as voice or data telephony systems, wired or wireless telephony, email, or instant messaging; computer networks such as intranets, extranets, local or wide area networks, or the Internet; and application programs such as web server software, operating systems, financial system software, etc.
- the method may be implemented in a computer program which is stored on a computer readable medium such as a magnetic or optical disk and is executed to cause the computer to perform the method.
- the service quality is monitored by a service monitor which regularly polls the service to determine a binary classification of the service as either good or bad.
- the service quality monitor may identify a number of discrete states of the service, and the administrator selects which combination of the states represents a working state versus a non-working state.
- the service usage amount is measured by a usage meter, which may be part of the service monitor or another component, and which tracks the level of traffic, performance or usage of the service on a substantially continuous basis. Since in these embodiments the service quality is monitored by polling, a finding of bad service at some point indicates that an outage occurred at some prior point in time after the last monitored level of good.
- the service change time window is determined by first defining a service failure time window bounded by successive readings of good and bad service levels, and then narrowing the service failure time window based upon the service usage amount measured during that service failure time window. This combination provides a more accurate time window encompassing the outage and which more likely encompasses or correlates to the event causing the outage.
- the probability that the detected event caused the service change may be computed in a number of ways.
- one or more weighting functions are used to compute a probability distribution covering events occurring during the service change time window and within a given time period prior to the window.
- the probability distribution could include events occurring a relatively long time prior to the outage, the likelihood that these older events are responsible for the outage exponentially decreases with distance from the time window and at some point are too negligible to be considered.
- the weighting functions may be combined to produce a combined weighting function. Exemplary weighting functions used in various embodiments of the invention include:
- the method involves determining a service change time window encompassing a change of service between a first working state and a service outage, the service change being determined at least in part based on measured service usage levels. For example, a service change may be detected by detecting a step change in service usage, without the need to resort to separate service quality data.
- a set of events occurring within a given time prior to and during the service change time window are detected, each occurrence of an event being associated with a time at which the event occurred.
- a probability distribution is computed for the set of events, which probability distribution determines for each event in the set the probability that the detected event caused the service change, the probability distribution being based at least in part on relations between the time of each event occurrence and the service change time window.
- a network monitoring system having a service monitor for monitoring quality of service on the network, a usage meter for monitoring usage of the network, an event detector for detecting network events and times at which the network events occur, and a probable cause engine, coupled to receive data from the service monitor, usage meter, and event detector.
- the probable cause engine sets a service outage time window based upon data received from the service monitor and usage meter, the service outage time window encompassing an occurrence of a service outage in the network.
- the probable cause engine further determines which of the network events detected by the event detector is the most likely cause of the service outage based at least in part on the relation between the detected network event times and the service outage time window.
- a method for quantifying the effect of a service outage over a first period of time involves monitoring or measuring levels of service usage over time, defining a cost of outage time window.
- the cost of outage time window includes the first time period and a second time period following the first time period.
- the method further involves computing a cost of the outage as the difference between the measured service usage during the cost of outage time window and service usage measured in a comparison window.
- the comparison window is substantially equal in time to the time of the cost of outage window and reflects a similar period of service activity as the cost of outage window, but has no service outage.
- the second period of time is the time in which the service usage returns or recovers from the outage to within a given percentage of a normal service usage level. This recovery should last for more than a mere instant to reflect a return to a state of relative equilibrium, as the service usage is likely to fluctuate following the restoration of service. For example, in an email system, a large number of messages may accumulate in the queue while the email system is down, and a this larger number of messages may be conveyed in a short period of time once the system is returned, resulting in very high volumes.
- the second period of time is bounded by a maximum time, e.g., a multiple of the time of the outage.
- the cost of outage is computed in units of service usage. What constitutes a unit of usage depends upon the nature of the service. For example, if the service is a communication service conveying messages, such as telephony or email, the unit of usage is one or more messages. If the service is a network server providing data items such as web pages in response to requests such as from clients, the unit of usage may be a received request or data item provided by a server.
- the service is a communication service conveying messages, such as telephony or email
- the unit of usage is one or more messages.
- the service is a network server providing data items such as web pages in response to requests such as from clients
- the unit of usage may be a received request or data item provided by a server.
- Units of usage may be normalized across different services by converting them to a value such as a monetary value, number of users, time value, or other value representing a loss resulting from not receiving the unit of usage. This may be accomplished by multiplying the units of usage by an assigned value of usage per unit.
- the normalized value of the service outage cost may then be used by administrators or an automated decision making program to compare costs of difference services and prioritize the allocation of resources across the services to prevent or repair service outages.
- the service usage is continuously monitored, including after the end of cost of outage window, and is used to measure the long term effects of the service outage. This is accomplished by computing the difference between the service usage following the cost of outage time window and a normal service usage level. If the service usage is substantially below or above the normal level following the outage, this is an indication that the outage is of the type that causes loss of use of the service, including loss of users.
- the method involves measuring the time duration for and service usage during the outage, and comparing the measured usage amounts to normal usage amounts measured under similar service conditions for a similar period of time where no service outage occurs, to thereby determine a usage loss amount.
- This usage loss amount is used to compute a predicted cost of the outage based at least upon a cost component, the cost component comprising a function of the measured time of the outage and measured usage loss amount.
- the predicted cost of service outage may be compared to a second predicted cost of outage value for a different service so that outages in the two services may be prioritized based on the compared costs.
- the cost components include a service demand cost component representing an affect on service usage based upon the duration of an outage, a customer retention cost component representing a number or percentage of customers lost due to the outage, an agreement penalty component representing penalties arising under one or more service agreements due to a service outage, and a trust loss component representing empirically collected assessments of cost due to loss of trust in the service.
- the service demand cost component may be computed by multiplying the measured usage loss by a usage loss curve which is a function of time duration of an outage and represents a predicted percentage usage due to an outage based on time duration of the outage.
- the usage loss curve may be generated using historical data derived from prior service outages.
- the methods and systems of the present invention thus provide a service administrator with the ability to more accurately assess what events are likely to have caused a service outage, without the need to know very much about the nature of the events, and to make a more well informed prioritization of service outages and allocation of resources in correcting or preventing the events and corresponding outages.
- Fig. 1 is a data flow diagram showing a time-based event correlation methodology in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Fig. 2 is a block diagram showing a service with service level and usage monitors in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Fig. 3 is a block diagram showing a network event correlation system in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Fig. 4 is a flow chart showing a process of correlating events with a service outage in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Fig. 5 is a graphical representation of an exemplary set of service quality data
- Fig. 6 is a graphical representation of an exemplary set of service usage data
- Figs. 7-9 are graphical representations of techniques for defining a likely cause window using service level or service usage data in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.
- Fig. 10 is a graphical representation of an exemplary time weighting function in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- Fig. 11 is a graphical representation of exemplary outages and events
- Fig. 12 is a table showing a probability distribution for the events shown in
- Fig. 13 is a graphical representation of a technique for defining a likely cause window for a service recovery using service level or service usage data in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Fig. 14 is a flow chart showing a process of predicting the cost of an outage in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Figs. 15A-15B contain a flow chart showing a process of quantifying the cost of a completed outage in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Figs. 16-19 are graphical representations of techniques for quantifying outage costs in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.
- Figs. 20-22 are graphical representations of exemplary cost of outage analyses performed in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.
- Figs. 23-34 are graphical representations of techniques for predicting the cost of an outage during the outage in accordance with embodiments of the present invention
- Fig. 25 is an exemplary usage loss curve as a function of time for use in predicting the cost of an outage in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention
- Figs. 26-28 are graphical representations of exemplary usage loss scenarios for use in generating a usage loss curve in accordance with one embodiments of the present invention.
- One goal of these embodiments is to discover the likely cause of a service outage or service recovery by identifying which event or events occurring in the service are most likely to have caused the outage or recovery. For the sake of simplicity, the following description will focus on predicting costs of service outages, but the techniques and system described herein can be applied to service recovery, as explained further below.
- a probable cause engine 16 receives these three sources of data and processes them using various heuristics as described herein to build a probability distribution 18 over the events in the system, based on which events are most likely to have caused the outage.
- the probable cause engine uses the service level data 10 and service usage data 12 to define a time window, sometimes referred to herein as a Likely Cause Window (LCW), which has a high probability of containing the event which caused the outage.
- the events 14 are then related to the outage based upon a time domain correlation.
- the probable cause engine 16 orders the events and assigns a discrete probability to each event, so that a service administrator may more accurately assess which event caused the outage.
- Event data 14 consists of a timestamp and identifier for each event.
- the probabilistic analysis performed by the probable cause engine 16 relies only on the time and type of an event, and does not involve or require any further knowledge of what a particular event consists of or the nature of the event.
- an event is often distinguished from an event type.
- An event generally refers to a single alarm, alert, or fault generated in or detected by the system monitoring the service. The same happening in the service may generate multiple events.
- An event type on the other hand, generally refers to the network happening that generated the events. Events 14 having the same identifier all come under the umbrella of a single event type.
- a set is a set of events. Members of this set are referenced with double subscript notation.
- Several events may, for example, have the same identifier and hence all represent alarms generated by a single event type.
- An event type is referred to by a single subscript. Different events of a particular type are distinguished with the second subscript. For example, events e u and e 12 would refer to two events of type e ⁇ . These events have the same identifier but different timestamps.
- Event e ⁇ represents the first chronological event of type e, in the set E
- event e 12 represents the second chronological event of type e l5
- event e 21 represents the first chronological event of type e 2 in the set E, and so on.
- the service level or quality data and service usage data are collected through any conventional devices depending upon the particular service.
- a service accessed by a number of end users 22 is monitored by service level monitors 24 as well as usage meter(s) 26.
- the usage meter or meters measure the total amount in which the service is used. This measurement will depend upon the nature of the service.
- the usage meter 26 measures the number of messages being conveyed by the service in an hour or other time period.
- a telecommunication service may include a wireless telephony system using the smart message service protocol, in which the usage meter measures the number of messages conveyed over the system.
- the amount of traffic may be measured over a given period.
- the usage may be measured in any appropriate manner, such as time spent, number of memory calls over time, number of documents accessed over time, etc.
- the service level monitors 24 monitor the status of the service on a polled basis. That is, they poll the service on a regular basis to determine whether the service is working. In some embodiments, this inquiry is binary in nature, resulting in a status of either working or non- working, sometimes referred to herein as a status of good or bad service. Alternatively, the service level monitors 24 may detect several types of service status, and an outage would be defined as desired as a transition from one status in which the service is considered to be working properly to a second status in which it is not providing an acceptable level of service. Multiple discrete service monitors 24 may be used to monitor the quality of service from different locations. For example, for a network accessible from several remotely located sites, each site would have a service monitor 24 to monitor the quality of service being received at that site, while the traffic on the entire network would be measured by usage meters 26.
- an outage of a service is generally a period or window of time during which positive affirmation of the service being good or acceptable can not be obtained.
- an outage time window contains one or more bad polls and is bounded at each end by two good polls. This guarantees that the outage window encompasses the entire outage incident.
- a network monitoring system 32 such as the NETCOOL suite available from Micromuse Inc., as described above.
- the network monitoring system 32 works in conjunction with one or more service quality monitors 24, such as Internet Service Monitors, a set of active monitors which work with the NETCOOL suite to provide availability information on Internet service elements including DNS, HTTP, LDAP, POP3, RADIUS, SMTP, and TCP Port Monitoring, or NT Service Monitors, which work with the network monitoring system 32 to collect management events from a network operations center regarding Windows NT environments.
- service quality monitors such as Internet Service Monitors, a set of active monitors which work with the NETCOOL suite to provide availability information on Internet service elements including DNS, HTTP, LDAP, POP3, RADIUS, SMTP, and TCP Port Monitoring, or NT Service Monitors, which work with the network monitoring system 32 to collect management events from a network operations center regarding Windows NT environments.
- a set of service usage meters 26A, 26B, and 26C work with the network monitoring system 32 to track the amount of activity seen at different locations on the network 30.
- service specific usage meters 26 A track activity on different services 34 available within the network, including, for example, a cache server, an email server, Radius, HTTP/HTML, LDAP, and other applications and services available to end users over the network 30.
- network edge usage meters 26B measure activity in and out of the network, including, for example, a usage meter 26B detecting activity at a firewall monitoring application which collects security information, a usage meter 26B at Cisco Net Flow, a usage meter 26B at a PIX firewall, and others as known to those skilled in the art.
- network sniffing usage meters 26C capture and listen to packets on the network received at a network interface.
- Examples of conventional network sniffing usage meters include Snoop, Etherreal, and Etherfind.
- Etherfind for example, examines packets traversing a network interface and outputs a text file describing the traffic. In the file, the text describing a single packet contains values such as protocol type, length, source, and destination. Further packet filtering can be done on the basis of protocol, e.g., IP, ARP, RARP, ICMP, UDP, TCP, and filtering can also be done based on the source, destination addresses as well as TCP and UDP port numbers.
- protocol e.g., IP, ARP, RARP, ICMP, UDP, TCP
- filtering can also be done based on the source, destination addresses as well as TCP and UDP port numbers.
- Events are detected by the network monitoring system 32 through probes or similar conventional mechanisms and are stored in an event object server 40.
- the object server is an object-oriented data repository where information on events is stored, viewed and managed. Events are stored as objects on the server 40 which can be more easily manipulated for processing.
- a gateway 42 allows a mediator program suite 44 to share the event data stored in the object server 40.
- the mediator program suite 44 includes the probable cause engine 16 as well as a cost of outage engine 46 for quantifying the effect of an outage, as described in greater detail below.
- An administrator desktop and user interface 48 allows a network administrator to interact with the mediator 44 and execute the probable cause engine 16 and cost of outage engine 46.
- the probable cause engine 16 receives service quality data from service quality monitors and service usage data from the service usage meters, step 60. This received data is used to detect the occurrence of an outage, step 62. When an outage is detected, the probable cause engine defines a time window, sometimes referred to herein as the likely cause window or LCW, using the service quality data, service usage data, or preferably both, step 64. The probable cause engine then retrieves event data from the event object server for events which occurred during the defined likely cause window and for a period prior to the LCW, step 66.
- a time window sometimes referred to herein as the likely cause window or LCW
- the events retrieved are each assumed to have a non-zero probability of having caused the outage, and it is further assumed that at least one of the retrieved events caused the outage.
- the engine then computes a probability distribution for the events which maps the probabilities that each event caused the detected outage, step 68. These probabilities are then associated with the events and output to the administrator in a suitable form. Particular implementations of steps in this methodology are now described with reference to the graphs shown in Figs. 5-12.
- Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate sample data sets for service quality and service usage, respectively. As shown in Fig. 5, service quality data consists of a series of points 80 regularly spaced at points in time.
- the service quality is monitored at one of two levels or states - good and bad - although a number of quality states might be detected.
- the classification of a quality state as good or bad is defined in the service monitor configuration by its discrete measurement classification. For purposes of simplicity in this application, it is understood that a transition from one of such states to another of such states is considered to represent a failure or outage in the service, with the definition of what loss of service constitutes an outage being a design consideration.
- Fig. 6 shows service usage data consisting of a greater number of points measured on a significantly more continuous basis.
- the service usage data points may be measured on an entirely continuous basis, e.g., every email message conveyed or every HTTP request is counted, or sufficient samplings of usage may be taken to accurately represent the actual usage of the service.
- time windows are understood to generally cover continuous subsets of the time line.
- square brackets denote inclusion of endpoints in the subset, while round brackets mean the end point is not included.
- a window (a,b] denotes a time window starting but not including time a and ending at and including time b.
- the notation e € W indicates that the timestamp associated with event e falls within the window W.
- Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate two ways in which outages are detected and the likely cause window is defined.
- One method of detecting an outage is through the service quality data received from a service monitor.
- the service quality data received from a service monitor.
- the probable cause engine interprets that the service went bad at some stage between the current bad poll and the previous good poll.
- the time window between these two polls is defined as the service failure window or SFW.
- SFW is the set (b,c].
- the time period between two readings of good in the service quality data in which one or more bad quality readings are monitored is defined as the outage window.
- the outage window is the set (b,e).
- the outage window is used among other things by the cost of outage engine to predict the cost of the outage and to quantify the cost of the outage in terms which may be compared to other service outages for purposes of prioritizing the application of resources in response to the outages.
- the probable cause engine defines the
- LCW as the SFW plus a small, preset time tolerance consisting of the windows [a,b] and [c,d].
- the LCW thus represents [a,d] in the diagram in Fig. 7.
- the probable cause engine detects an outage using only the service usage data, without necessarily resorting to the service quality data.
- the engine detects a usage step change and verifies based on the step change whether the service has gone bad.
- the probable cause engine detects a changepoint in a univariate time series, the time series consisting of the discrete measurements of units of usage. If a change in the service quality has already been detected by a service monitor, the SFW is defined as explained above as the period during which the service outage started.
- the usage step change is found in this window using an offline changepoint detection algorithm.
- the LCW may be defined by the probable cause engine as the time window from briefly before the usage step change up to and including the step change.
- the outage is detected, clearly getting a tight bound on when the actual outage occurred is important to determining which event caused the outage.
- the smaller the LCW the more likely it is that the probable cause engine will be able to pinpoint the event which caused the outage.
- the LCW should be the smallest time window that can reasonably be specified in which the data indicates the outage occurred.
- the probable cause engine uses the usage step change to provide a tighter bound on a SFW previously established using service quality data.
- a service monitor detects that the service quality has gone bad.
- the probable cause engine puts a much tighter bound on the SFW to produce a narrower LCW.
- Fig. 8 in which the service quality data of Fig. 7 is shown in conjunction with usage data. It will be recognized by one skilled in the art that, for purposes of comparing the two types of data and graphing them together in Fig. 8 and later drawings, either or both of the service quality data and service usage data have been normalized.
- the probable cause engine analyzes the usage data for the time period within the SFW found through the service quality data and detects a usage data step change.
- the LCW is then defined as the period of the step change plus time tolerances.
- the definition of the likely cause window is based on the service quality and service usage data received regarding a specific service.
- the probable cause engine considers outages in other services to achieve a more refined definition of the service failure window and ultimately the likely cause window. This is based on a theory that the cause of an outage under consideration often causes outages in other, related services.
- the engine identifies related services as services experiencing an outage whose service failure window overlaps with the service failure window for the outage under consideration.
- the engine can use stored information about the relatedness of various services, e.g., a knowledge base or expert system.
- the engine then superimposes the service failure window for the main or principle service with service monitor or usage meter data received regarding the related services. This results in a smaller composite service failure window, as shown in Fig. 9, and thus improves the probable cause analysis. If the probable cause engine is performing the analysis on a service which has recovered, as described below, then a similar condition can be applied to the corresponding service recovery window.
- the probable cause engine retrieves event data defining a set of events and builds a discrete probability distribution function, P, such that for any event, e, the probability that this event caused the service outage is P(e).
- the probability distribution, P is based on heuristic observations of cause and effect. While many suitable heuristics will accomplish the task, four heuristics are described below, one for each criterion included in the model. In some embodiments, each heuristic can be considered on its own. Alternatively, two or more of these four heuristics are incorporated by means of mathematical weighting functions. A probability is assigned to each event type, rather to each individual event.
- a first heuristic is a time weighting function T(e). This function reflects the heuristic that events in the outage window are much more likely to have caused the service outage than events outside it. Indeed, the probability assigned to events outside the outage window should decay as we move further away from the outage window.
- a second heuristic is a false occurrence weighting function FO(e). This function reflects the heuristic that if an event appears many times in the retrieved set of events E, while the service was good, this event is less likely to have caused the outage. The more times an event has occurred outside of any outage window, the less probability is assigned to it.
- a third heuristic is a positive occurrence weighting function PO(e). This function reflects the heuristic that the more previous outage windows an event has appeared in, the greater the probability that it has caused the current outage. The use of this heuristic requires the storage of event and outage data for reuse in later analyses.
- a historic or user input weighting function U(e) reflects information provided by users of the system in the past, as stored in a database. If a user of the system has, in the past, associated a previous outage with a particular event, then this event is assigned a much higher probability. The more times an event has been associated with previous outages (by a user), the higher the probability is assigned to it.
- F(e) T(e) * FO(e) * PO(e) * U(e)
- the engine accomplishes this by discounting each of the individual weights by the sum of all the weights.
- an event, e has probability
- weighting functions used by the probable cause engine are now described. As will be understood by one skilled in the art, other weighting functions may be used within the spirit of the present invention to achieve a probabilistic time domain correlation of events and outages.
- a certain constant weighting, K is assigned to events inside the LCW.
- the function models an exponential decay in the weighting assigned to events, decreasing as events occur further away from the LCW.
- e y be an event
- [a,d] define the LCW on a timeline.
- t be the minimum absolute distance from the event ey to an endpoint ofthe LCW. If ey is in the LCW, then t ⁇ O.
- T(e ;j ) is thus defined as follows:
- T(e y ) assigns a weighting of K/2 to an event occurring at time a -
- the time weighting function for an event of a given type is then defined as the maximum over all the events of that event type, or
- the function For the positive occurrence weighting function, defining pos ⁇ cc(e) as the number of previous occurrences of events of this type inside LCWs, the function may be defined as follows:
- the false occurrence weighting function defining neg ⁇ cc(e) as the number of previous occurrences outside any outage windows, i.e., during periods of good service uninterrupted by outages, the false occurrence weighting function can be defined as:
- the probability distribution is performed in the time domain, relying only on the temporal relation of events to the likely cause window containing the outage.
- the invention thus advantageously avoids the need to take into account of the nature of an event, but only needs to consider its timestamp and identifier.
- this information and previous user knowledge may be incorporated to add more sophisticated weighting to the probability distribution performed by the probable cause engine.
- the engine may account for where on the network an event occurred or on which type of device.
- the understanding of the invention will be enhanced through an example.
- the service quality data and event data for the example is illustrated in the diagram in Fig. 11.
- the probable cause engine is concerned with the second of the two service outages shown in the Figure, and is trying to find the most probable cause for this second outage.
- the set of events, E contains eight event types (event types e r e 8 ) and fourteen instances of events.
- the engine retrieves stored data showing that a user previously nominated event type e 2 as the cause of a previous outage of this service.
- the probable cause engine determines a probability distribution as shown in the table in Fig. 12, where the event types are ordered on the probability of having caused the outage.
- the table in Fig. 12 also shows how the different weighting functions have influenced the probability assigned to each event type.
- the probable cause engine can also be used in a similar manner to that previously described to identify the resolution of a service and predict its likely cause.
- a service quality change is detected by a service monitor and/or a usage change showing the service changing from a non- working state such as an outage to a good status.
- a service recovery window SRW
- a likely recovery window LRW is initially defined as the SRW plus a small preset time tolerance, or using any of the other techniques for leveraging service usage data as described above.
- the LRW can be refined based upon current usage data for the service and sympathetic services which have overlapping LRW's.
- a series of weighting functions can similarly be applied to the events to assign probabilities as to which event caused the service to recover.
- This service recover analysis is useful, among other things, within systems which have auto-correction with discrete devices or in which changes are being made to devices independent of the knowledge of the service outage - which nevertheless are service effecting.
- the probable cause engine identifies the most likely cause(s) of a service outage or service recovery. This helps network administrators identify these events as ones which should be prevented or more quickly fixed to minimize the likelihood of future outages, or to identify events which work towards correcting outages sooner to enhance the chances of a quicker service recovery. However, when outages in different services, or the events that are likely to cause them, occur at around the same time, administrators need to prioritize the outages or events to properly allocate resources. The cost of outage engine in the mediator assists the administrator in this evaluation.
- the cost of outage engine relies on historical service usage data for a service stored in a database accessible to the mediator.
- the cost of outage engine analyzes the usage which takes place over a window of time which incorporates a service outage with comparison to the usage which has taken place during a similar comparison window of time without a service outage. This comparison is used to predict or calculate a loss in service usage due to this outage. This is then recalculated as a monetary loss by applying a value to the usage of the service. This quantifies the motivational factor for fixing a current outage and the motivational factor for ensuring a previous outage is not repeated.
- the cost of outage engine performs its analysis during a service outage and retrospectively for a previous service outage.
- the service quality monitors regularly poll the service for quality level and the service usage meters continuously measure the activity in a service, step 84. If a service outage is detected, step 86, based on the service quality or service usage data using techniques described above, the costing engine predicts the cost of the outage based on the current outage window length, for current outages, and including various extended outage windows for completed outages, step 88. The use of window lengths to predict and compute outage costs is described in greater detail below. Once a predicted cost is computed, it is compared to the outage costs determined for other services, step 90. This comparison may then be used to prioritize outages and allocate resources to the service outages, step 92.
- the costing engine both predicts costs of ongoing outages and computes costs for completed outages which have at least partially recovered. Because the prediction of outages is based in part on historical computations of outage costs, specific techniques for computing outage costs for completed outages are described first, followed by specific techniques for predicting costs of an outage during the outage.
- the service quality monitors regularly poll the service for quality level and the service usage meters continuously measure the activity in a service, step 100.
- the usage meters preferably measure the usage in units of usage.
- the unit of usage varies according to the service being measured, and is typically measured over a timed interval. For example, a unit of usage for a web server is the number of hits on the web server in a minute; for an email server, the number of emails sent and received by a company per hour; for a mobile telephone service, the number of mobile phone calls made by an individual per hour.
- an outage window is defined using the service quality data and/or service usage data, step 104.
- the outage window may be defined as the period between two service quality readings of good service with one or more bad quality readings in between.
- the cost of outage engine then defines an extended window which includes the outage window and a second time window, step 106. This extended window is referred to herein as a cost of outage window.
- the cost of outage window is the time span over which the usage data is considered for any given outage, with the goal being to analyze the usage data over a 5 period corresponding to that which incorporates all the effects of the outage on usage patterns.
- the cost of outage window thus extends beyond the bounds of the outage window to pick up the recovery in usage, subsequent to the outage.
- the cost of outage window is limited to a time frame around the outage, and in some embodiments is initially defined in terms of a time span equal to a multiple of outage ⁇ o windows in duration, starting at the same time as the outage. In one embodiment, the cost of outage window is set equal to four times the outage window in length, starting at the same time the outage window begins and continuing for three outage windows duration past the end of the outage window. This is illustrated in Fig. 16.
- the cost of outage window can be reduced is from the full window if the time to recover occurs within this window.
- the cost of outage engine determines whether the service recovered during the . extended cost of outage window, step 108.
- the cost of outage engine determines a recovery as the return to "normal" service usage, with normal service varying and being service specific. In some embodiments, a recovery occurs when the units of usage are within 75% -
- a recovery is considered to occur when the units of usage remain within a range of plus or minus 20% of the comparison window's usage value for a sustained period equal to 1/4 the outage window in length, as illustrated graphically in Fig. 17.
- 25 cost of outage window is defined as the full, extended cost of outage window, e.g., four times the outage window, step 110. If the service usage recovers during the cost of outage window, the cost of outage window is shrunk to end at the recovery time, step 112, i.e., the cost of outage window is set at the outage window plus the time to recover. This shortening of the cost of outage window to the time to recover is illustrated in Fig. 18.
- the cost of outage engine defines a comparison window, step 114, as having a time period equal in length to the cost of outage window and chosen to reflect a similar period of activity as would have occurred during the cost of outage window, had there not been an outage.
- the definition of the comparison window typically takes into account the cyclic nature of service access, and is typically the same period of time for the previous day/week/month or year. In most corporate services this is the previous week.
- the cost of outage engine then retrieves the service usage data collected and stored for the defined comparison window, step 116.
- the measured usage data for the current cost of outage window is then compared to the retrieved usage data for the comparison window, step 118.
- This comparison yields several important items of information.
- the cost of outage engine uses this comparison to compute a percentage peak usage, as the highest percentage units of usage recorded during the cost of outage window when calculated as a percentage against the comparison window. This can be used as a measure of demand for a service after an outage has occurred, i.e., a service usage overshoot.
- the cost of outage engine can compute a percentage minimum usage as the minimum units of usage recorded during a cost of outage window, computed in one embodiment as a percentage based upon the previous service usage in the comparison window. This computed comparison can be used as a measure of how complete the service outage was. These two computed values are illustrated on the usage data shown in Fig. 19.
- a primary purpose of comparing the service usage data in the cost of outage window is to determine the effect of the outage on overall service and users.
- the cost of outage engine compares the usage data in the two windows to determine whether any loss of usage occurred, step 120. This comparison is performed as the difference over the cost of outage window compared the comparison window. If the difference is zero or negligible, the cost of outage engine determines that loss of service usage occurred, and that the service made a full recovery, step 122. Otherwise, the engine computes the loss of service, step 124.
- the cost of outage engine analyzes the usage data at the instance at the end of the cost of outage window to normal levels as represented in some embodiments by the levels depicted in the comparison window, step 126, and determines the difference, step 128.
- This difference in actual and expected service usage at the end of the cost of outage window is considered as a measurement of the long term effect of this outage.
- this computed difference may be used as an indication of the loss of users to the service, perhaps because of the increased difficulty in accessing the service or lost opportunity.
- the units of usage in the percentage churn is converted to a number of users by dividing the usage units by a conversion factor representing a number of usage units per user. This calculated number of users may then be converted to cost by multiplying the number of users by a factor representing a set cost per user.
- the loss of usage and related computed values must be normalized against different services. This is accomplished by applying a value of usage weighting, where the value of usage represents, for example, the monetary loss to an organization for not achieving a given unit of usage. This may vary as a function of time, the individual or group attempting that unit of usage, etc.
- the cost of usage is computed, step 130, by multiplying the loss of usage by a set value of usage represents the monetary cost of the outage.
- the cost of outage engine can compare the costs of two or more outages, for example, outages which may be overlapping, and prioritize them based on cost.
- This aspect of the invention would be better understood by the application of this methodology to several examples of service failure.
- a momentary (e.g., less than one minute) loss of service is detected for a corporate email service.
- the time to recover defines and shortens the cost of outage window, and there is a service overshoot as a result of the pent up demand caused by a small time of outage.
- a service overshoot should equal the loss of usage area, meaning that effectively there was zero loss in service usage as a result of this small service outage. There is no percentage churn as the time to recover defines the cost of outage window.
- a corporate web service fails for a medium period (e.g., less than three hours).
- the cost of outage engine finds a definite loss in usage of the service, showing that any intended usage of the service during the outage has not been carried forward to when the service was restored. However the usage has recovered to show no overall percentage churn.
- an e-commerce web service fails for a relatively long period (e.g., one day).
- the cost of outage engine finds effects of the outage lasting beyond the cost of outage window, giving a percentage churn value of approximately 50%.
- the cost of an outage is thus determined based on three basic factors - the type of service, the length of the outage window, and the time the outage occurred.
- the description turns now to techniques used by the cost of outage engine for predicting the total cost of an outage during the outage based on a given outage length.
- This cost prediction may be used, among other things, to assess the priority of allocating resources to fix this outage.
- the prediction of service outage cost is based on the results of a combination of outage costing components.
- Each costing component is a function that returns a cost when given an outage length among other possible variables.
- Each costing component model a particular way an outage can cost money.
- the costing components include the following:
- Each costing component produces a monetary cost using some or all of the following data: length of outage, usage levels at time of outage, historical usage trends, and empirical knowledge.
- the Service Demand component embodies how the length of outage affects the short to medium term usage of a service.
- the two diagrams in Figs. 23 and 24 illustrate the anatomy of an outage. The measured usage during an outage determines the severity of the outage. A complete outage results in no measured usage.
- Usage measured during an outage is treated as fulfilled demand, and the usage loss is measured as the difference between expected or normal usage as determined, for example, by service usage during a comparison window, and the measured usage, as shown in Fig. 23.
- the service demand component aims to derive a cost for all usage loss attributable to the given, current outage.
- the loss of usage includes usage lost in the outage window as well as predicted usage lost and regained during the recovery period, as shown in Fig. 24.
- the costing engine computes the service demand cost component using a Usage Loss Curve.
- usage loss refers to the absence of usage, either measured or projected, as compared to usage measurements for a comparable period
- total usage loss for an outage refers to the combined usage loss from both the outage window and the recovery period.
- FIG. 25 An example Usage Loss Curve is shown in Fig. 25.
- the horizontal axis represents outage window length, that is, the measured duration of the outage.
- the vertical axis represents total usage loss as a percentage of usage loss in the outage window.
- the vertical axis plots 100 * ( total usage loss / usage loss in outage window ). This allows the predicted total usage loss for an outage in progress to be derived from the measured loss in usage and the current length of the outage. For this prediction the final outage length is taken to be the current outage length.
- This method is also used to predict the costs of an outage when the outage is not expected to finish at the time the prediction is made. Modeling such a scenario relies on the assumption that level of usage in the outage window will remain constant from the last measured usage value to the projected end of the outage window.
- the letters A- E on the length of outage axis denote inflection points and are used to illustrate some of the features of a Usage Loss curve.
- outage length is zero, and no outage has occurred.
- From points A - B - 0% usage loss - all usage missed during outage is regained post outage.
- From points C-D - 100% usage loss - all usage missed during outage is lost.
- From points D-E - 100-200% usage loss- all usage missed during outage is lost and outage causes post usage to be affected.
- the costing engine estimates cost of the outage using the service demand curve and the Usage Loss curve.
- O L is the length of the outage, which may be the length of the outage to date or the length of the outage at some future point;
- Fu is the function represented by the Usage Loss Curve.
- Usage Loss Curves for service instances and types may be derived from previous outage analyses. For each previous outage of a service two variables are extracted: total usage loss as a percentage of usage loss during the outage window, and length of the outage window. Outage data from a series of outages may be transformed into a Usage Loss Curve using a local regression model such as Lowess, as described in W. S. Cleveland, Visual and Computational Considerations in Smoothing Scatterplots by Locally Weighted Regression, Computer Science and Statistics: Eleventh Annual Symposium on the Interface, pages 96-100, Institute of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1978, which is incorporated herein by reference.
- a local regression model such as Lowess, as described in W. S. Cleveland, Visual and Computational Considerations in Smoothing Scatterplots by Locally Weighted Regression, Computer Science and Statistics: Eleventh Annual Symposium on the Interface, pages 96-100, Institute of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina,
- the transformation of outage information into a Usage Loss Curve is improved by applying usage patterns to the outages. These are used to better determine the amount of usage lost. Usage patterns have two components:
- a number of usage patterns are identified and defined on the basis of observations of human interaction with a service during the outage recovery period. These usage patterns are described with reference to Figs. 26-28. In other embodiments patterns may be used that model the behavior of Internet protocols and hardware during outages.
- a first such usage pattern a blip outage, has the characteristics of a short length outage, that usage lost during outage is regained post outage, and that users are typically unaware of the outage.
- An exemplary blip outage is a one minute POP3 outage, in which emails not served during the outage are served when the outage completes.
- Fig. 26 graphically represents this usage pattern, in which overshoot usage during recovery makes up for lost usage during the outage. This pattern may be defined by the rule that greater than 75% of the usage loss in the outage window is recovered within one outage window past end of outage. The usage loss during this usage pattern is zero, and the identification rule for this usage pattern is:
- a second usage pattern has the characteristics of a medium length outage in which usage that would have occurred during the outage period is not regained when outage ends, and that users are aware of the outage.
- An example of a loss outage is a one hour POP3 outage, during which the telephone is used as an alternative to email during outage period.
- the usage graph of a loss outage is shown in Fig. 27, in which the usage loss during the outage exceeds the usage gained during recovery.
- a loss usage may be defined as one in which less than 25% of the usage loss during outage is recovered within 3 outage windows past end of outage.
- the identification rule for this usage pattern is: 0 ⁇ [S USAGE (T E ,T E + 3*
- the usage loss calculation is: 100*[S USAGE (T S ,T E + 3*
- a third usage pattern a suppressant outage, has the features of a long outage in which usage that would have occurred during the outage period is not regained when the outage ends, and usage does not return to pre-outage levels quickly after the outage, and in which a user's short term confidence in the service is lost and alternatives are sought.
- a suppressant outage is a one day POP3 outage, in which the telephone is used as an alternative to email even when the outage ends.
- Fig. 28 graphs this usage pattern, showing that, usage continues to be below normal levels well after the outage has recovered.
- a suppressant outage may be characterized in that, for some value n, usage levels in each of the n subsequent outage window lengths past the end of the outage are less than 90% of the n corresponding comparison windows.
- a suitable value for n is 5.
- the usage loss percentage calculation is: 100 * [C USAGE (T S ,T E + n*
- the service level agreement penalty component derives financial penalties based on the outage details. This financial penalty could be fixed ( $x per outage ), time linear ( $x per minute of outage) or usage linear ( $x per byte of usage missed ).
Abstract
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (4)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
GB0315055A GB2387066B (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2001-11-21 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
AU1666002A AU1666002A (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2001-11-21 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
DE10196984T DE10196984T1 (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2001-11-21 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time-domain correlation |
AU2002216660A AU2002216660B2 (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2001-11-21 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US09/724,025 | 2000-11-28 | ||
US09/724,025 US7383191B1 (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2000-11-28 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2002045315A2 true WO2002045315A2 (en) | 2002-06-06 |
WO2002045315A3 WO2002045315A3 (en) | 2003-03-06 |
Family
ID=24908658
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2001/043140 WO2002045315A2 (en) | 2000-11-28 | 2001-11-21 | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
Country Status (5)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (3) | US7383191B1 (en) |
AU (2) | AU2002216660B2 (en) |
DE (1) | DE10196984T1 (en) |
GB (1) | GB2387066B (en) |
WO (1) | WO2002045315A2 (en) |
Cited By (82)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP1526680A2 (en) * | 2003-09-29 | 2005-04-27 | Nortel Networks Limited | Probable cause fields in telecommunications network alarm indication messages |
WO2005053231A1 (en) * | 2003-11-19 | 2005-06-09 | Honeywell International Inc. | Communication fault containment via indirect detection |
WO2007007895A1 (en) | 2005-07-11 | 2007-01-18 | Nec Corporation | Communication network trouble detecting system, communication network trouble detecting method and trouble detecting program |
US7219239B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2007-05-15 | Arcsight, Inc. | Method for batching events for transmission by software agent |
US7260844B1 (en) | 2003-09-03 | 2007-08-21 | Arcsight, Inc. | Threat detection in a network security system |
US7333999B1 (en) | 2003-10-30 | 2008-02-19 | Arcsight, Inc. | Expression editor |
US7376969B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2008-05-20 | Arcsight, Inc. | Real time monitoring and analysis of events from multiple network security devices |
US7383191B1 (en) * | 2000-11-28 | 2008-06-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
US7424742B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2008-09-09 | Arcsight, Inc. | Dynamic security events and event channels in a network security system |
US7437359B2 (en) | 2006-04-05 | 2008-10-14 | Arcsight, Inc. | Merging multiple log entries in accordance with merge properties and mapping properties |
US7509677B2 (en) | 2004-05-04 | 2009-03-24 | Arcsight, Inc. | Pattern discovery in a network security system |
CN101471962A (en) * | 2007-12-20 | 2009-07-01 | Ncr公司 | Device management portal, system and method |
US7565696B1 (en) | 2003-12-10 | 2009-07-21 | Arcsight, Inc. | Synchronizing network security devices within a network security system |
WO2009042919A3 (en) * | 2007-09-26 | 2009-08-06 | Nicira Networks | Network operating system for managing and securing networks |
US7607169B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2009-10-20 | Arcsight, Inc. | User interface for network security console |
US7644438B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2010-01-05 | Arcsight, Inc. | Security event aggregation at software agent |
US7647632B1 (en) | 2005-01-04 | 2010-01-12 | Arcsight, Inc. | Object reference in a system |
US7650638B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2010-01-19 | Arcsight, Inc. | Network security monitoring system employing bi-directional communication |
US7788722B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2010-08-31 | Arcsight, Inc. | Modular agent for network security intrusion detection system |
US7809131B1 (en) | 2004-12-23 | 2010-10-05 | Arcsight, Inc. | Adjusting sensor time in a network security system |
US7844999B1 (en) | 2005-03-01 | 2010-11-30 | Arcsight, Inc. | Message parsing in a network security system |
US7899901B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2011-03-01 | Arcsight, Inc. | Method and apparatus for exercising and debugging correlations for network security system |
US7920983B1 (en) | 2010-03-04 | 2011-04-05 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for monitoring resources in a water utility network |
US8015604B1 (en) | 2003-10-10 | 2011-09-06 | Arcsight Inc | Hierarchical architecture in a network security system |
US8176527B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2012-05-08 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L. P. | Correlation engine with support for time-based rules |
EP2469757A1 (en) * | 2010-12-24 | 2012-06-27 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Communications network management |
US8341106B1 (en) | 2011-12-07 | 2012-12-25 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for identifying related events in a resource network monitoring system |
EP2555142A1 (en) * | 2011-08-03 | 2013-02-06 | General Electric Company | Risk management system for use with service agreements |
US8528077B1 (en) | 2004-04-09 | 2013-09-03 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Comparing events from multiple network security devices |
US8850565B2 (en) | 2005-01-10 | 2014-09-30 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | System and method for coordinating network incident response activities |
DE102013010205A1 (en) | 2013-06-20 | 2014-12-24 | Axel Springer Ag | Error detection and localization in network services |
US9027120B1 (en) | 2003-10-10 | 2015-05-05 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Hierarchical architecture in a network security system |
US9053519B2 (en) | 2012-02-13 | 2015-06-09 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for analyzing GIS data to improve operation and monitoring of water distribution networks |
US9100422B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2015-08-04 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Network zone identification in a network security system |
EP2577332A4 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-03-02 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US9319913B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-04-19 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Wireless end-user device with secure network-provided differential traffic control policy list |
US9351193B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-05-24 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Intermediate networking devices |
US9386121B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-05 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Method for providing an adaptive wireless ambient service to a mobile device |
US9386165B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-05 | Headwater Partners I Llc | System and method for providing user notifications |
US9392462B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-12 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Mobile end-user device with agent limiting wireless data communication for specified background applications based on a stored policy |
US9491199B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-11-08 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
EP3107243A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-21 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US9532261B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-12-27 | Headwater Partners I Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US9557889B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-01-31 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Service plan design, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and device management |
US9565543B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US9565707B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Wireless end-user device with wireless data attribution to multiple personas |
US9572019B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-14 | Headwater Partners LLC | Service selection set published to device agent with on-device service selection |
US9571559B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-14 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US9578182B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-21 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Mobile device and service management |
US9591474B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration |
US9609510B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated credential porting for mobile devices |
US9609459B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Network tools for analysis, design, testing, and production of services |
US9647918B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-05-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application |
US9706061B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-07-11 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Service design center for device assisted services |
US9705771B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-07-11 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Attribution of mobile device data traffic to end-user application based on socket flows |
US9755842B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-09-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Managing service user discovery and service launch object placement on a device |
US9769207B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-09-19 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network service interfaces |
US9819808B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-11-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Hierarchical service policies for creating service usage data records for a wireless end-user device |
CN107368939A (en) * | 2017-06-06 | 2017-11-21 | 蔚来汽车有限公司 | The method and apparatus for determining the service ability of charging and conversion electric facility unit group |
US9858559B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-01-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Network service plan design |
US9942796B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-10 | Headwater Research Llc | Quality of service for device assisted services |
US9954975B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US9955332B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Method for child wireless device activation to subscriber account of a master wireless device |
US9980146B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-05-22 | Headwater Research Llc | Communications device with secure data path processing agents |
US10057775B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-21 | Headwater Research Llc | Virtualized policy and charging system |
US10064055B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US10070305B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-09-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted services install |
US10200541B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-02-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device with divided user space/kernel space traffic policy system |
US10237757B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-03-19 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US10242414B2 (en) | 2012-06-12 | 2019-03-26 | TaKaDu Ltd. | Method for locating a leak in a fluid network |
US10248996B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-04-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Method for operating a wireless end-user device mobile payment agent |
US10264138B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-04-16 | Headwater Research Llc | Mobile device and service management |
US10326800B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-06-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network service interfaces |
US10492102B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-11-26 | Headwater Research Llc | Intermediate networking devices |
US10715342B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-07-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Managing service user discovery and service launch object placement on a device |
US10779177B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-15 | Headwater Research Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US10783581B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-22 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device providing ambient or sponsored services |
US10798252B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-10-06 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for providing user notifications |
US10841839B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-11-17 | Headwater Research Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US11218854B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-01-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Service plan design, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and device management |
US11310152B2 (en) | 2010-12-24 | 2022-04-19 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Communications network management |
US11412366B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-08-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced roaming services and converged carrier networks with device assisted services and a proxy |
Families Citing this family (47)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20030172010A1 (en) * | 2002-03-08 | 2003-09-11 | Agile Software Corporation | System and method for analyzing data |
US20050096953A1 (en) * | 2003-11-01 | 2005-05-05 | Ge Medical Systems Global Technology Co., Llc | Methods and apparatus for predictive service for information technology resource outages |
US8862570B1 (en) | 2004-03-02 | 2014-10-14 | Rockstar Consortium Us Lp | Method and apparatus for open management of multi-media services |
US20060072707A1 (en) * | 2004-09-30 | 2006-04-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and apparatus for determining impact of faults on network service |
US20060136986A1 (en) * | 2004-12-17 | 2006-06-22 | Doolittle Robert W | Enterprise security monitoring system and method |
US7689455B2 (en) * | 2005-04-07 | 2010-03-30 | Olista Ltd. | Analyzing and detecting anomalies in data records using artificial intelligence |
US7609825B2 (en) * | 2005-07-11 | 2009-10-27 | At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. | Method and apparatus for automated billing and crediting of customer accounts |
US8230051B1 (en) | 2006-06-27 | 2012-07-24 | Emc Corporation | Method and apparatus for mapping and identifying resources for network-based services |
US7779101B1 (en) * | 2006-06-27 | 2010-08-17 | Emc Corporation | Method and apparatus for mapping and identifying the root causes of performance problems in network-based services |
KR100840129B1 (en) * | 2006-11-16 | 2008-06-20 | 삼성에스디에스 주식회사 | System and method for management of performance fault using statistical analysis |
US9088518B2 (en) | 2007-01-25 | 2015-07-21 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Web services and telecom network management unification |
US7853417B2 (en) * | 2007-01-30 | 2010-12-14 | Silver Spring Networks, Inc. | Methods and system for utility network outage detection |
US20080209030A1 (en) * | 2007-02-28 | 2008-08-28 | Microsoft Corporation | Mining Web Logs to Debug Wide-Area Connectivity Problems |
US20080306804A1 (en) * | 2007-06-06 | 2008-12-11 | Opdycke Thomas C | Systems for scheduling marketing campaigns in public places in order to enable measurement and optimization of audience response |
US20090089325A1 (en) * | 2007-09-28 | 2009-04-02 | Rockwell Automation Technologies, Inc. | Targeted resource allocation |
WO2009045218A1 (en) | 2007-10-04 | 2009-04-09 | Donovan John J | A video surveillance, storage, and alerting system having network management, hierarchical data storage, video tip processing, and vehicle plate analysis |
US8013738B2 (en) | 2007-10-04 | 2011-09-06 | Kd Secure, Llc | Hierarchical storage manager (HSM) for intelligent storage of large volumes of data |
US20090144214A1 (en) * | 2007-12-04 | 2009-06-04 | Aditya Desaraju | Data Processing System And Method |
US7808888B2 (en) * | 2008-02-25 | 2010-10-05 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Network fault correlation in multi-route configuration scenarios |
US8631117B2 (en) * | 2008-08-19 | 2014-01-14 | Vmware, Inc. | System and method for correlating fingerprints for automated intelligence |
US20100057519A1 (en) * | 2008-08-27 | 2010-03-04 | Chitra Dorai | System and method for assigning service requests with due date dependent penalties |
US8433452B2 (en) * | 2008-09-15 | 2013-04-30 | Aclara Power-Line Systems, Inc. | Method for load control using temporal measurements of energy for individual pieces of equipment |
US8441516B2 (en) | 2008-10-07 | 2013-05-14 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Service level view of audiovisual conference systems |
US20100280861A1 (en) * | 2009-04-30 | 2010-11-04 | Lars Rossen | Service Level Agreement Negotiation and Associated Methods |
US8856020B2 (en) * | 2010-02-23 | 2014-10-07 | Telefonica, S.A. | Method for optimizing the consumption of a telecommunications service |
US8898287B2 (en) * | 2010-02-24 | 2014-11-25 | Salesforce.Com, Inc. | System, method and computer program product for monitoring data activity utilizing a shared data store |
WO2012018343A1 (en) * | 2010-08-06 | 2012-02-09 | Empire Technology Development Llc | Communication network monitoring |
US8819713B1 (en) * | 2010-11-30 | 2014-08-26 | The Directv Group, Inc. | Method and system for collecting client usage data for a user device |
US8595565B1 (en) | 2010-12-15 | 2013-11-26 | The Boeing Company | Methods and systems for optimizing information technology costs based on outage costs |
US9521205B1 (en) | 2011-08-01 | 2016-12-13 | Google Inc. | Analyzing changes in web analytics metrics |
WO2013102153A1 (en) * | 2011-12-30 | 2013-07-04 | Rev2 Networks, Inc. | Automated network disturbance prediction system method & apparatus |
US8935561B2 (en) * | 2012-02-23 | 2015-01-13 | City University Of Hong Kong | Progressive network recovery |
US20130339515A1 (en) * | 2012-06-13 | 2013-12-19 | International Business Machines Corporation | Network service functionality monitor and controller |
US9210600B1 (en) * | 2012-09-07 | 2015-12-08 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Wireless network performance analysis system and method |
US9432865B1 (en) | 2013-12-19 | 2016-08-30 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | Wireless cell tower performance analysis system and method |
US10123223B1 (en) | 2014-01-30 | 2018-11-06 | Sprint Communications Company L.P. | System and method for evaluating operational integrity of a radio access network |
US10073726B2 (en) * | 2014-09-02 | 2018-09-11 | Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc | Detection of outage in cloud based service using usage data based error signals |
US10277487B2 (en) | 2015-10-09 | 2019-04-30 | Google Llc | Systems and methods for maintaining network service levels |
US10158522B2 (en) * | 2016-12-29 | 2018-12-18 | Nokia Of America Corporation | Network monitor and method for event based prediction of radio network outages and their root cause |
US10310933B2 (en) * | 2017-01-13 | 2019-06-04 | Bank Of America Corporation | Near real-time system or network incident detection |
US10558648B2 (en) | 2017-05-23 | 2020-02-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Service outage time reduction for a planned event in a system |
US11128643B2 (en) | 2017-07-17 | 2021-09-21 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Activity detection based on time difference metrics |
WO2019024987A1 (en) * | 2017-08-01 | 2019-02-07 | Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) | Optimizing cell outage mitigation in a communications network |
US10769009B2 (en) * | 2018-03-21 | 2020-09-08 | International Business Machines Corporation | Root cause analysis for correlated development and operations data |
US11196642B2 (en) * | 2018-12-09 | 2021-12-07 | Promptlink Communications, Inc. | Network management |
JP7113238B2 (en) * | 2018-12-28 | 2022-08-05 | パナソニックIpマネジメント株式会社 | Electronic controllers, electronic control systems and programs |
US11856014B2 (en) * | 2021-04-23 | 2023-12-26 | Capital One Services, Llc | Anomaly detection in computing computing system events |
Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5132920A (en) * | 1988-02-16 | 1992-07-21 | Westinghouse Electric Corp. | Automated system to prioritize repair of plant equipment |
US5748098A (en) * | 1993-02-23 | 1998-05-05 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Event correlation |
US5872911A (en) * | 1995-12-29 | 1999-02-16 | Mci Communications Corporations | Method and system of service impact analysis in a communications network |
US6012152A (en) * | 1996-11-27 | 2000-01-04 | Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) | Software fault management system |
US6219805B1 (en) * | 1998-09-15 | 2001-04-17 | Nortel Networks Limited | Method and system for dynamic risk assessment of software systems |
Family Cites Families (113)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US3855456A (en) | 1972-11-22 | 1974-12-17 | Ebasco Serv | Monitor and results computer system |
US3906454A (en) | 1973-05-18 | 1975-09-16 | Bell Telephone Labor Inc | Computer monitoring system |
US4135662A (en) | 1977-06-15 | 1979-01-23 | Pitney-Bowes, Inc. | Operator prompting system |
US4545013A (en) | 1979-01-29 | 1985-10-01 | Infinet Inc. | Enhanced communications network testing and control system |
JPS5685507A (en) | 1979-12-17 | 1981-07-11 | Hitachi Ltd | Monitoring method of performance of steam turbine plant |
US4438494A (en) | 1981-08-25 | 1984-03-20 | Intel Corporation | Apparatus of fault-handling in a multiprocessing system |
US4503535A (en) | 1982-06-30 | 1985-03-05 | Intel Corporation | Apparatus for recovery from failures in a multiprocessing system |
US4503534A (en) | 1982-06-30 | 1985-03-05 | Intel Corporation | Apparatus for redundant operation of modules in a multiprocessing system |
US4622545A (en) | 1982-09-30 | 1986-11-11 | Apple Computer, Inc. | Method and apparatus for image compression and manipulation |
US4585975A (en) | 1983-04-21 | 1986-04-29 | Tektronix, Inc. | High speed Boolean logic trigger oscilloscope vertical amplifier with edge sensitivity and nested trigger |
US4634110A (en) | 1983-07-28 | 1987-01-06 | Harris Corporation | Fault detection and redundancy management system |
US4568909A (en) | 1983-12-19 | 1986-02-04 | United Technologies Corporation | Remote elevator monitoring system |
US4517468A (en) | 1984-04-30 | 1985-05-14 | Westinghouse Electric Corp. | Diagnostic system and method |
US4648044A (en) | 1984-06-06 | 1987-03-03 | Teknowledge, Inc. | Basic expert system tool |
US4591983A (en) | 1984-07-09 | 1986-05-27 | Teknowledge, Inc. | Hierarchical knowledge system |
US4727545A (en) | 1986-09-02 | 1988-02-23 | Digital Equipment Corporation | Method and apparatus for isolating faults in a digital logic circuit |
US4932026A (en) | 1986-12-19 | 1990-06-05 | Wang Laboratories, Inc. | Apparatus for distributing data processing across a plurality of loci of control |
US4914657A (en) | 1987-04-15 | 1990-04-03 | Allied-Signal Inc. | Operations controller for a fault tolerant multiple node processing system |
US4823345A (en) | 1987-06-15 | 1989-04-18 | International Business Machines Corp. | Method and apparatus for communication network alert record identification |
JPH0786833B2 (en) | 1987-06-26 | 1995-09-20 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Knowledge-based management system |
US4817092A (en) | 1987-10-05 | 1989-03-28 | International Business Machines | Threshold alarms for processing errors in a multiplex communications system |
US4881230A (en) | 1987-10-05 | 1989-11-14 | Ibm Corporation | Expert system for processing errors in a multiplex communications system |
US4866712A (en) | 1988-02-19 | 1989-09-12 | Bell Communications Research, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for fault recovery |
US5133075A (en) | 1988-12-19 | 1992-07-21 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Method of monitoring changes in attribute values of object in an object-oriented database |
US5109486A (en) | 1989-01-06 | 1992-04-28 | Motorola, Inc. | Distributed computer system with network and resource status monitoring |
US5107494A (en) * | 1989-04-20 | 1992-04-21 | Motorola, Inc. | Method and apparatus for communicating an information signal having dynamically varying quality |
US5125091A (en) | 1989-06-08 | 1992-06-23 | Hazox Corporation | Object oriented control of real-time processing |
US5315502A (en) * | 1989-06-09 | 1994-05-24 | Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha | Plant operation support apparatus and method using expert systems |
US5107497A (en) | 1989-07-28 | 1992-04-21 | At&T Bell Laboratories | Technique for producing an expert system for system fault diagnosis |
US5123017A (en) | 1989-09-29 | 1992-06-16 | The United States Of America As Represented By The Administrator Of The National Aeronautics And Space Administration | Remote maintenance monitoring system |
US5247517A (en) | 1989-10-20 | 1993-09-21 | Novell, Inc. | Method and apparatus for analyzing networks |
US5159685A (en) | 1989-12-06 | 1992-10-27 | Racal Data Communications Inc. | Expert system for communications network |
JP2810171B2 (en) | 1989-12-18 | 1998-10-15 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Network system and network management method applying the same |
US5722427A (en) | 1993-05-10 | 1998-03-03 | Eyesys Technologies, Inc. | Method of refractive surgery |
DE69126666T2 (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1998-02-12 | Cabletron Systems Inc | NETWORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH MODEL-BASED INTELLIGENCE |
US5727157A (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1998-03-10 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Apparatus and method for determining a computer network topology |
US5559955A (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1996-09-24 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for monitoring the status of non-pollable device in a computer network |
US5295244A (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1994-03-15 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Network management system using interconnected hierarchies to represent different network dimensions in multiple display views |
US5751933A (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1998-05-12 | Dev; Roger H. | System for determining the status of an entity in a computer network |
US5261044A (en) | 1990-09-17 | 1993-11-09 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Network management system using multifunction icons for information display |
US5214653A (en) | 1990-10-22 | 1993-05-25 | Harris Corporation | Fault finder expert system |
US5293629A (en) | 1990-11-30 | 1994-03-08 | Abraxas Software, Inc. | Method of analyzing computer source code |
US5325518A (en) | 1991-04-02 | 1994-06-28 | Carnegie Mellon University | Adaptive distributed system and method for fault tolerance |
US5774377A (en) | 1991-07-30 | 1998-06-30 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Method and apparatus for monitoring a subsystem within a distributed system for providing an archive of events within a certain time of a trap condition |
US5179556A (en) | 1991-08-02 | 1993-01-12 | Washington University | Bandwidth management and congestion control scheme for multicast ATM networks |
US5321837A (en) | 1991-10-11 | 1994-06-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Event handling mechanism having a process and an action association process |
US5309448A (en) | 1992-01-03 | 1994-05-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Methods and systems for alarm correlation and fault localization in communication networks |
US5383178A (en) | 1992-03-26 | 1995-01-17 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Network commentator |
US5495470A (en) | 1992-04-02 | 1996-02-27 | Applied Digital Access, Inc. | Alarm correlation system for a telephone network |
US5819028A (en) | 1992-06-10 | 1998-10-06 | Bay Networks, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining the health of a network |
GB9303640D0 (en) | 1993-02-23 | 1993-04-07 | British Telecomm | Object-oriented correlation |
US5666481A (en) | 1993-02-26 | 1997-09-09 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for resolving faults in communications networks |
US5375070A (en) | 1993-03-01 | 1994-12-20 | International Business Machines Corporation | Information collection architecture and method for a data communications network |
US6049792A (en) * | 1993-03-19 | 2000-04-11 | Ricoh Company Limited | Automatic invocation of computational resources without user intervention across a network |
US5557747A (en) | 1993-06-22 | 1996-09-17 | Rogers; Lawrence D. | Network policy implementation system for performing network control operations in response to changes in network state |
US5432934A (en) | 1993-07-26 | 1995-07-11 | Gensym Corporation | Access restrictions as a means of configuring a user interface and making an application secure |
EP0721719A1 (en) | 1993-09-20 | 1996-07-17 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Communications network management system and method, using fuzzy logic |
US5485455A (en) | 1994-01-28 | 1996-01-16 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Network having secure fast packet switching and guaranteed quality of service |
US5528516A (en) | 1994-05-25 | 1996-06-18 | System Management Arts, Inc. | Apparatus and method for event correlation and problem reporting |
US5483637A (en) | 1994-06-27 | 1996-01-09 | International Business Machines Corporation | Expert based system and method for managing error events in a local area network |
NL9401155A (en) * | 1994-07-12 | 1996-02-01 | Hadewe Bv | Mail processing system with diagnostic facilities. |
US5675741A (en) | 1994-10-25 | 1997-10-07 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining a communications path between two nodes in an Internet Protocol (IP) network |
AU3965595A (en) | 1994-10-25 | 1996-05-15 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automatically populating a network simulator tool |
US5980984A (en) | 1994-11-04 | 1999-11-09 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Method for sealing remote leaks in an enclosure using an aerosol |
US6006016A (en) | 1994-11-10 | 1999-12-21 | Bay Networks, Inc. | Network fault correlation |
US5748781A (en) | 1995-01-04 | 1998-05-05 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for digital data compression |
US5627819A (en) | 1995-01-09 | 1997-05-06 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Use of multipoint connection services to establish call-tapping points in a switched network |
US6209033B1 (en) * | 1995-02-01 | 2001-03-27 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Apparatus and method for network capacity evaluation and planning |
US5706436A (en) | 1995-02-01 | 1998-01-06 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Apparatus and method for evaluation network traffic performance |
AU692369B2 (en) | 1995-02-02 | 1998-06-04 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for learning network behavior trends and predicting future behavior of communications networks |
US5832503A (en) | 1995-02-24 | 1998-11-03 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for configuration management in communications networks |
US5872928A (en) | 1995-02-24 | 1999-02-16 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for defining and enforcing policies for configuration management in communications networks |
US6255943B1 (en) * | 1995-03-29 | 2001-07-03 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for distributed object filtering |
US5696486A (en) | 1995-03-29 | 1997-12-09 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for policy-based alarm notification in a distributed network management environment |
US5777549A (en) * | 1995-03-29 | 1998-07-07 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for policy-based alarm notification in a distributed network management environment |
US6421719B1 (en) * | 1995-05-25 | 2002-07-16 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for reactive and deliberative configuration management |
US6381639B1 (en) * | 1995-05-25 | 2002-04-30 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc. | Policy management and conflict resolution in computer networks |
US5889953A (en) | 1995-05-25 | 1999-03-30 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Policy management and conflict resolution in computer networks |
US5649103A (en) | 1995-07-13 | 1997-07-15 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for managing multiple server requests and collating reponses |
US5764955A (en) | 1995-10-19 | 1998-06-09 | Oasys Group, Inc. | Gateway for using legacy telecommunications network element equipment with a common management information protocol |
US5590120A (en) | 1995-10-31 | 1996-12-31 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Port-link configuration tracking method and apparatus |
US5793362A (en) | 1995-12-04 | 1998-08-11 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Configurations tracking system using transition manager to evaluate votes to determine possible connections between ports in a communications network in accordance with transition tables |
US5949759A (en) | 1995-12-20 | 1999-09-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Fault correlation system and method in packet switching networks |
US5734642A (en) | 1995-12-22 | 1998-03-31 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for network synchronization |
US5761502A (en) | 1995-12-29 | 1998-06-02 | Mci Corporation | System and method for managing a telecommunications network by associating and correlating network events |
US6233623B1 (en) * | 1996-01-11 | 2001-05-15 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Replicated resource management system for managing resources in a distributed application and maintaining a relativistic view of state |
US6199172B1 (en) * | 1996-02-06 | 2001-03-06 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for testing the responsiveness of a network device |
US5751965A (en) | 1996-03-21 | 1998-05-12 | Cabletron System, Inc. | Network connection status monitor and display |
US5768501A (en) * | 1996-05-28 | 1998-06-16 | Cabletron Systems | Method and apparatus for inter-domain alarm correlation |
US5832196A (en) | 1996-06-28 | 1998-11-03 | Mci Communications Corporation | Dynamic restoration process for a telecommunications network |
US5907696A (en) | 1996-07-03 | 1999-05-25 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Network device simulator |
US6041383A (en) * | 1996-07-22 | 2000-03-21 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Establishing control of lock token for shared objects upon approval messages from all other processes |
JP3825845B2 (en) * | 1996-09-27 | 2006-09-27 | ヤマハ発動機株式会社 | Evolutionary control method |
US5984178A (en) | 1996-11-29 | 1999-11-16 | Diebold, Incorporated | Fault monitoring and notification system for automated banking machines |
US6084858A (en) * | 1997-01-29 | 2000-07-04 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Distribution of communication load over multiple paths based upon link utilization |
US5940376A (en) | 1997-01-29 | 1999-08-17 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus to establish a tap-point in a switched network using self-configuring switches having distributed configuration capabilities |
US5791694A (en) | 1997-02-20 | 1998-08-11 | Dover Corporation | Lock for coupling cam arms |
US6216168B1 (en) * | 1997-03-17 | 2001-04-10 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Perspective-based shared scope address resolution method and apparatus |
US6003090A (en) | 1997-04-23 | 1999-12-14 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | System for determining network connection availability between source and destination devices for specified time period |
US6392667B1 (en) * | 1997-06-09 | 2002-05-21 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for representing objects as visually discernable entities based on spatial definition and perspective |
US6141720A (en) * | 1997-06-12 | 2000-10-31 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for coordination of a shared object in a distributed system |
US5949676A (en) * | 1997-07-30 | 1999-09-07 | Allen-Bradley Company Llc | Method and system for diagnosing the behavior of a machine controlled by a discrete event control system |
US6085174A (en) * | 1997-09-23 | 2000-07-04 | Edelman; Ric | Computer assisted and/or implemented process and architecture for administering an investment and/or retirement program |
US6437804B1 (en) * | 1997-10-23 | 2002-08-20 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc | Method for automatic partitioning of node-weighted, edge-constrained graphs |
US6047279A (en) * | 1997-11-17 | 2000-04-04 | Objective Systems Integrators, Inc. | System and method for automatic network management support using artificial intelligence |
US6026442A (en) * | 1997-11-24 | 2000-02-15 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Method and apparatus for surveillance in communications networks |
WO1999057858A1 (en) * | 1998-05-07 | 1999-11-11 | Cabletron Systems, Inc. | Multiple priority buffering in a computer network |
US6336138B1 (en) * | 1998-08-25 | 2002-01-01 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Template-driven approach for generating models on network services |
US6349306B1 (en) * | 1998-10-30 | 2002-02-19 | Aprisma Management Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for configuration management in communications networks |
US6184829B1 (en) * | 1999-01-08 | 2001-02-06 | Trueposition, Inc. | Calibration for wireless location system |
US6597777B1 (en) * | 1999-06-29 | 2003-07-22 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Method and apparatus for detecting service anomalies in transaction-oriented networks |
US7383191B1 (en) * | 2000-11-28 | 2008-06-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
US7603709B2 (en) * | 2001-05-03 | 2009-10-13 | Computer Associates Think, Inc. | Method and apparatus for predicting and preventing attacks in communications networks |
-
2000
- 2000-11-28 US US09/724,025 patent/US7383191B1/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
2001
- 2001-11-21 AU AU2002216660A patent/AU2002216660B2/en not_active Ceased
- 2001-11-21 DE DE10196984T patent/DE10196984T1/en not_active Ceased
- 2001-11-21 GB GB0315055A patent/GB2387066B/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
- 2001-11-21 AU AU1666002A patent/AU1666002A/en active Pending
- 2001-11-21 WO PCT/US2001/043140 patent/WO2002045315A2/en not_active Application Discontinuation
-
2008
- 2008-03-24 US US12/054,132 patent/US20080189225A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2008-03-24 US US12/054,150 patent/US20080215355A1/en not_active Abandoned
Patent Citations (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5132920A (en) * | 1988-02-16 | 1992-07-21 | Westinghouse Electric Corp. | Automated system to prioritize repair of plant equipment |
US5748098A (en) * | 1993-02-23 | 1998-05-05 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Event correlation |
US5872911A (en) * | 1995-12-29 | 1999-02-16 | Mci Communications Corporations | Method and system of service impact analysis in a communications network |
US6012152A (en) * | 1996-11-27 | 2000-01-04 | Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) | Software fault management system |
US6219805B1 (en) * | 1998-09-15 | 2001-04-17 | Nortel Networks Limited | Method and system for dynamic risk assessment of software systems |
Cited By (172)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7383191B1 (en) * | 2000-11-28 | 2008-06-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation |
US7376969B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2008-05-20 | Arcsight, Inc. | Real time monitoring and analysis of events from multiple network security devices |
US8056130B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2011-11-08 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Real time monitoring and analysis of events from multiple network security devices |
US7899901B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2011-03-01 | Arcsight, Inc. | Method and apparatus for exercising and debugging correlations for network security system |
US7219239B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2007-05-15 | Arcsight, Inc. | Method for batching events for transmission by software agent |
US7607169B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2009-10-20 | Arcsight, Inc. | User interface for network security console |
US8230507B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2012-07-24 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Modular agent for network security intrusion detection system |
US7650638B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2010-01-19 | Arcsight, Inc. | Network security monitoring system employing bi-directional communication |
US8365278B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2013-01-29 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Displaying information regarding time-based events |
US8613083B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2013-12-17 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Method for batching events for transmission by software agent |
US7788722B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2010-08-31 | Arcsight, Inc. | Modular agent for network security intrusion detection system |
US8176527B1 (en) | 2002-12-02 | 2012-05-08 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L. P. | Correlation engine with support for time-based rules |
US7861299B1 (en) | 2003-09-03 | 2010-12-28 | Arcsight, Inc. | Threat detection in a network security system |
US7260844B1 (en) | 2003-09-03 | 2007-08-21 | Arcsight, Inc. | Threat detection in a network security system |
EP1526680A3 (en) * | 2003-09-29 | 2005-10-05 | Nortel Networks Limited | Probable cause fields in telecommunications network alarm indication messages |
EP1526680A2 (en) * | 2003-09-29 | 2005-04-27 | Nortel Networks Limited | Probable cause fields in telecommunications network alarm indication messages |
US8015604B1 (en) | 2003-10-10 | 2011-09-06 | Arcsight Inc | Hierarchical architecture in a network security system |
US9027120B1 (en) | 2003-10-10 | 2015-05-05 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Hierarchical architecture in a network security system |
US7333999B1 (en) | 2003-10-30 | 2008-02-19 | Arcsight, Inc. | Expression editor |
WO2005053231A1 (en) * | 2003-11-19 | 2005-06-09 | Honeywell International Inc. | Communication fault containment via indirect detection |
US7565696B1 (en) | 2003-12-10 | 2009-07-21 | Arcsight, Inc. | Synchronizing network security devices within a network security system |
US8230512B1 (en) | 2003-12-10 | 2012-07-24 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Timestamp modification in a network security system |
US8528077B1 (en) | 2004-04-09 | 2013-09-03 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Comparing events from multiple network security devices |
US7509677B2 (en) | 2004-05-04 | 2009-03-24 | Arcsight, Inc. | Pattern discovery in a network security system |
US7984502B2 (en) | 2004-05-04 | 2011-07-19 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Pattern discovery in a network system |
US7424742B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2008-09-09 | Arcsight, Inc. | Dynamic security events and event channels in a network security system |
US9100422B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2015-08-04 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Network zone identification in a network security system |
US7644438B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2010-01-05 | Arcsight, Inc. | Security event aggregation at software agent |
US8099782B1 (en) | 2004-10-27 | 2012-01-17 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Event aggregation in a network |
US7809131B1 (en) | 2004-12-23 | 2010-10-05 | Arcsight, Inc. | Adjusting sensor time in a network security system |
US8065732B1 (en) | 2005-01-04 | 2011-11-22 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | Object reference in a system |
US7647632B1 (en) | 2005-01-04 | 2010-01-12 | Arcsight, Inc. | Object reference in a system |
US8850565B2 (en) | 2005-01-10 | 2014-09-30 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | System and method for coordinating network incident response activities |
US7844999B1 (en) | 2005-03-01 | 2010-11-30 | Arcsight, Inc. | Message parsing in a network security system |
WO2007007895A1 (en) | 2005-07-11 | 2007-01-18 | Nec Corporation | Communication network trouble detecting system, communication network trouble detecting method and trouble detecting program |
EP1903717A1 (en) * | 2005-07-11 | 2008-03-26 | NEC Corporation | Communication network trouble detecting system, communication network trouble detecting method and trouble detecting program |
EP1903717A4 (en) * | 2005-07-11 | 2013-07-17 | Nec Corp | Communication network trouble detecting system, communication network trouble detecting method and trouble detecting program |
US7437359B2 (en) | 2006-04-05 | 2008-10-14 | Arcsight, Inc. | Merging multiple log entries in accordance with merge properties and mapping properties |
US11683214B2 (en) | 2007-09-26 | 2023-06-20 | Nicira, Inc. | Network operating system for managing and securing networks |
US9876672B2 (en) | 2007-09-26 | 2018-01-23 | Nicira, Inc. | Network operating system for managing and securing networks |
WO2009042919A3 (en) * | 2007-09-26 | 2009-08-06 | Nicira Networks | Network operating system for managing and securing networks |
US10749736B2 (en) | 2007-09-26 | 2020-08-18 | Nicira, Inc. | Network operating system for managing and securing networks |
CN101471962A (en) * | 2007-12-20 | 2009-07-01 | Ncr公司 | Device management portal, system and method |
US10798254B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-10-06 | Headwater Research Llc | Service design center for device assisted services |
US10248996B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-04-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Method for operating a wireless end-user device mobile payment agent |
US11923995B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2024-03-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US11757943B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-09-12 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated device provisioning and activation |
US11750477B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-09-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Adaptive ambient services |
US11665186B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-05-30 | Headwater Research Llc | Communications device with secure data path processing agents |
US9319913B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-04-19 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Wireless end-user device with secure network-provided differential traffic control policy list |
US9351193B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-05-24 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Intermediate networking devices |
US9386121B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-05 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Method for providing an adaptive wireless ambient service to a mobile device |
US9386165B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-05 | Headwater Partners I Llc | System and method for providing user notifications |
US9392462B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-07-12 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Mobile end-user device with agent limiting wireless data communication for specified background applications based on a stored policy |
US9491199B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-11-08 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US9521578B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-12-13 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Wireless end-user device with application program interface to allow applications to access application-specific aspects of a wireless network access policy |
US11665592B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-05-30 | Headwater Research Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US9532261B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2016-12-27 | Headwater Partners I Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US11589216B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-02-21 | Headwater Research Llc | Service selection set publishing to device agent with on-device service selection |
US11582593B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-02-14 | Head Water Research Llc | Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration |
US11570309B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-01-31 | Headwater Research Llc | Service design center for device assisted services |
US11563592B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2023-01-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Managing service user discovery and service launch object placement on a device |
US9544397B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-01-10 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Proxy server for providing an adaptive wireless ambient service to a mobile device |
US9557889B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-01-31 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Service plan design, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and device management |
US9565543B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US9565707B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Wireless end-user device with wireless data attribution to multiple personas |
US9572019B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-14 | Headwater Partners LLC | Service selection set published to device agent with on-device service selection |
US9571559B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-14 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US9578182B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-02-21 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Mobile device and service management |
US9591474B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-07 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration |
US9609510B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated credential porting for mobile devices |
US9609544B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US9609459B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-03-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Network tools for analysis, design, testing, and production of services |
US9615192B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-04-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Message link server with plural message delivery triggers |
US9641957B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-05-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated device provisioning and activation |
US9647918B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-05-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Mobile device and method attributing media services network usage to requesting application |
US9674731B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-06-06 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless device applying different background data traffic policies to different device applications |
US9706061B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-07-11 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Service design center for device assisted services |
US9705771B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-07-11 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Attribution of mobile device data traffic to end-user application based on socket flows |
US9749899B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-08-29 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device with network traffic API to indicate unavailability of roaming wireless connection to background applications |
US9749898B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-08-29 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device with differential traffic control policy list applicable to one of several wireless modems |
US9755842B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-09-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Managing service user discovery and service launch object placement on a device |
US9769207B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-09-19 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network service interfaces |
US9819808B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2017-11-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Hierarchical service policies for creating service usage data records for a wireless end-user device |
US11538106B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-12-27 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device providing ambient or sponsored services |
US9858559B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-01-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Network service plan design |
US9866642B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-01-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device with wireless modem power state control policy for background applications |
US11533642B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-12-20 | Headwater Research Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US9942796B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-10 | Headwater Research Llc | Quality of service for device assisted services |
US9954975B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US9955332B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-04-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Method for child wireless device activation to subscriber account of a master wireless device |
US9973930B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-05-15 | Headwater Research Llc | End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check |
US9980146B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-05-22 | Headwater Research Llc | Communications device with secure data path processing agents |
US10028144B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-07-17 | Headwater Research Llc | Security techniques for device assisted services |
US10057141B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-21 | Headwater Research Llc | Proxy system and method for adaptive ambient services |
US10057775B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-21 | Headwater Research Llc | Virtualized policy and charging system |
US10064033B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US10064055B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-08-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US10070305B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-09-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted services install |
US10080250B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-09-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Enterprise access control and accounting allocation for access networks |
US10165447B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2018-12-25 | Headwater Research Llc | Network service plan design |
US10171988B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-01-01 | Headwater Research Llc | Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration |
US11516301B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-11-29 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US10171681B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-01-01 | Headwater Research Llc | Service design center for device assisted services |
US10200541B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-02-05 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device with divided user space/kernel space traffic policy system |
US10237757B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-03-19 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US10237773B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-03-19 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US10237146B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-03-19 | Headwater Research Llc | Adaptive ambient services |
US11494837B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-11-08 | Headwater Research Llc | Virtualized policy and charging system |
US11477246B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-10-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Network service plan design |
US10264138B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-04-16 | Headwater Research Llc | Mobile device and service management |
US10320990B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-06-11 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted CDR creation, aggregation, mediation and billing |
US10321320B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-06-11 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network buffered message system |
US10326800B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-06-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network service interfaces |
US10326675B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-06-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Flow tagging for service policy implementation |
US10462627B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-10-29 | Headwater Research Llc | Service plan design, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and device management |
US10492102B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2019-11-26 | Headwater Research Llc | Intermediate networking devices |
US10536983B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-01-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Enterprise access control and accounting allocation for access networks |
US10582375B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-03-03 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted services install |
US10681179B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-06-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced curfew and protection associated with a device group |
US10694385B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-06-23 | Headwater Research Llc | Security techniques for device assisted services |
US10716006B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-07-14 | Headwater Research Llc | End user device that secures an association of application to service policy with an application certificate check |
US10715342B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-07-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Managing service user discovery and service launch object placement on a device |
US11425580B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-08-23 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US10749700B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-08-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US10771980B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-08 | Headwater Research Llc | Communications device with secure data path processing agents |
US10779177B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-15 | Headwater Research Llc | Device group partitions and settlement platform |
US10783581B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-22 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless end-user device providing ambient or sponsored services |
US10791471B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-09-29 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for wireless network offloading |
US11412366B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-08-09 | Headwater Research Llc | Enhanced roaming services and converged carrier networks with device assisted services and a proxy |
US10798558B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-10-06 | Headwater Research Llc | Adapting network policies based on device service processor configuration |
US10798252B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-10-06 | Headwater Research Llc | System and method for providing user notifications |
US10803518B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-10-13 | Headwater Research Llc | Virtualized policy and charging system |
US10834577B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-11-10 | Headwater Research Llc | Service offer set publishing to device agent with on-device service selection |
US11405429B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-08-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Security techniques for device assisted services |
US10841839B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-11-17 | Headwater Research Llc | Security, fraud detection, and fraud mitigation in device-assisted services systems |
US10848330B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-11-24 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US10855559B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-12-01 | Headwater Research Llc | Adaptive ambient services |
US10869199B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2020-12-15 | Headwater Research Llc | Network service plan design |
US10985977B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-04-20 | Headwater Research Llc | Quality of service for device assisted services |
US11039020B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-06-15 | Headwater Research Llc | Mobile device and service management |
US11096055B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-08-17 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated device provisioning and activation |
US11134102B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-09-28 | Headwater Research Llc | Verifiable device assisted service usage monitoring with reporting, synchronization, and notification |
US11190545B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-11-30 | Headwater Research Llc | Wireless network service interfaces |
US11190645B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-11-30 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted CDR creation, aggregation, mediation and billing |
US11190427B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2021-11-30 | Headwater Research Llc | Flow tagging for service policy implementation |
US11219074B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-01-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Enterprise access control and accounting allocation for access networks |
US11218854B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-01-04 | Headwater Research Llc | Service plan design, user interfaces, application programming interfaces, and device management |
US11228617B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-01-18 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated device provisioning and activation |
US11405224B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-08-02 | Headwater Research Llc | Device-assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US11337059B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-05-17 | Headwater Research Llc | Device assisted services install |
US11363496B2 (en) | 2009-01-28 | 2022-06-14 | Headwater Research Llc | Intermediate networking devices |
US7920983B1 (en) | 2010-03-04 | 2011-04-05 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for monitoring resources in a water utility network |
EP3110070A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-28 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
EP2577332A4 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-03-02 | Headwater Partners I Llc | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
EP3110071A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-28 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
EP3110072A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-28 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
EP3110069A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-28 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
EP3107243A1 (en) * | 2010-05-25 | 2016-12-21 | Headwater Partners I LLC | Device- assisted services for protecting network capacity |
US11310152B2 (en) | 2010-12-24 | 2022-04-19 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Communications network management |
EP2469757A1 (en) * | 2010-12-24 | 2012-06-27 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Communications network management |
WO2012085520A1 (en) * | 2010-12-24 | 2012-06-28 | British Telecommunications Public Limited Company | Communications network management |
EP2555142A1 (en) * | 2011-08-03 | 2013-02-06 | General Electric Company | Risk management system for use with service agreements |
US8341106B1 (en) | 2011-12-07 | 2012-12-25 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for identifying related events in a resource network monitoring system |
US9053519B2 (en) | 2012-02-13 | 2015-06-09 | TaKaDu Ltd. | System and method for analyzing GIS data to improve operation and monitoring of water distribution networks |
US10242414B2 (en) | 2012-06-12 | 2019-03-26 | TaKaDu Ltd. | Method for locating a leak in a fluid network |
US10171995B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2019-01-01 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated credential porting for mobile devices |
US10834583B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2020-11-10 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated credential porting for mobile devices |
US11743717B2 (en) | 2013-03-14 | 2023-08-29 | Headwater Research Llc | Automated credential porting for mobile devices |
DE102013010205A1 (en) | 2013-06-20 | 2014-12-24 | Axel Springer Ag | Error detection and localization in network services |
WO2014202039A1 (en) | 2013-06-20 | 2014-12-24 | Axel Springer Se | Error detection and localization in network services |
CN107368939A (en) * | 2017-06-06 | 2017-11-21 | 蔚来汽车有限公司 | The method and apparatus for determining the service ability of charging and conversion electric facility unit group |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US7383191B1 (en) | 2008-06-03 |
GB0315055D0 (en) | 2003-07-30 |
GB2387066B (en) | 2004-12-29 |
DE10196984T1 (en) | 2003-11-13 |
AU1666002A (en) | 2002-06-11 |
WO2002045315A3 (en) | 2003-03-06 |
US20080189225A1 (en) | 2008-08-07 |
US20080215355A1 (en) | 2008-09-04 |
AU2002216660B2 (en) | 2007-01-04 |
GB2387066A (en) | 2003-10-01 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7383191B1 (en) | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation | |
AU2002216660A1 (en) | Method and system for predicting causes of network service outages using time domain correlation | |
US7081823B2 (en) | System and method of predicting future behavior of a battery of end-to-end probes to anticipate and prevent computer network performance degradation | |
US6966015B2 (en) | Method and system for reducing false alarms in network fault management systems | |
CA2618935C (en) | Monitoring and management of distributed information systems | |
US8472328B2 (en) | Impact scoring and reducing false positives | |
US8041797B2 (en) | Apparatus and method for allocating resources based on service level agreement predictions and associated costs | |
US7733787B1 (en) | Dependability measurement schema for communication networks | |
Hellerstein et al. | An approach to predictive detection for service management | |
US20060277080A1 (en) | Method and system for automatically testing information technology control | |
US20040133395A1 (en) | System and method for statistical performance monitoring | |
JP2005508596A (en) | Data network controller | |
JP2004348740A (en) | Self-learning method and system for detecting abnormality | |
US20070297337A1 (en) | Apparatus and methods for determining availability and performance of entities providing services in a distributed system using filtered service consumer feedback | |
US20140281741A1 (en) | Method, user interface and apparatus for cloud service confidence level generation and display | |
US7324923B2 (en) | System and method for tracking engine cycles | |
ur Rehman et al. | User-side QoS forecasting and management of cloud services | |
KR20050030539A (en) | Real-time sla impact analysis | |
GB2404525A (en) | Quantifying the effect of a service outage | |
KR101027242B1 (en) | Method and Apparatus for Predicting Error in Process Control Network | |
CN115016976A (en) | Root cause positioning method, device, equipment and storage medium | |
AU2005270749B2 (en) | Monitoring and management of distributed information systems | |
JP7328577B2 (en) | Monitoring and maintenance device, monitoring and maintenance method, and monitoring and maintenance program | |
Verma et al. | Performance and Accounting Management | |
WO2001061492A1 (en) | Method and apparatus for integrating response time and enterprise management |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
AK | Designated states |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): AE AG AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY BZ CA CH CN CO CR CU CZ DE DK DM DZ EE ES FI GB GD GE GH GM HR HU ID IL IN IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MA MD MG MK MN MW MX MZ NO NZ OM PH PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT TZ UA UG UZ VN YU ZA ZW |
|
AL | Designated countries for regional patents |
Kind code of ref document: A2 Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW MZ SD SL SZ TZ UG ZM ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM AT BE CH CY DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT LU MC NL PT SE TR BF BJ CF CG CI CM GA GN GQ GW ML MR NE SN TD TG |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 0315055 Country of ref document: GB Kind code of ref document: A Free format text: PCT FILING DATE = 20011121 |
|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application | ||
DFPE | Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101) | ||
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2002216660 Country of ref document: AU |
|
RET | De translation (de og part 6b) |
Ref document number: 10196984 Country of ref document: DE Date of ref document: 20031113 Kind code of ref document: P |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 10196984 Country of ref document: DE |
|
122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase | ||
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: JP |
|
WWW | Wipo information: withdrawn in national office |
Ref document number: JP |
|
REG | Reference to national code |
Ref country code: DE Ref legal event code: 8607 |