{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02830587241233629, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021123785382340513, 'mean_word_length': 5.670422535211268, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Protocol Efficiencies of NETCONF versus SNMP for Configuration Management Functions

This paper focuses on the quantitative analysis of the performance characteristics of two different network management protocols, the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [1] and the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [2]. SNMP is a legacy protocol which has been widely deployed and in use for several decades and is based on a request-response messaging protocol using a connectionless transport, generally the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [3]. NETCONF is an emerging technology that has limited deployment. NETCONF is based on an XML messaging protocol using a connection-oriented transport, generally the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [4]. Additionally, NETCONF is often invoked within a secure shell (SSH) session [5]. Today’s complex and vast communication networks span the globe and include multiple equipment venders and technologies. The problem that Communication Service Providers (CSPs) face today is that SNMP no longer scales as an efficient and effective means for performing many network management functions (e.g., configuration) in such complex environments. New network management protocols have been designed, such as NETCONF, with goals of overcoming limitations encountered with SNMP. Several questions are posed with the advent of this new technology. The first question posed is: Can it be established that NETCONF could meet the current and future needs as a scalable, efficient, and effective method for performing configuration management functions within Communication Service Providers’ networks? The second question posed is: Is the NETCONF protocol more efficient, in terms of protocol bandwidth utilization, number of packets, number of transactions and operation time, than SNMP for performing configuration network management functions? And the third question posed is: By what factor is NETCONF more efficient than SNMP, if it is truly more efficient? If quantitative measurements can show that NETCONF is more efficient (in terms of bandwidth utilization, packet counts, transaction counts and operation time), than SNMP, and by some factor of N, this may be applied to the SNMP scalability problem where NETCONF could be the replacement protocol to achieve the desired scalability in configuration network management functions.