Advertisement

State Model Diagrams – a Systems Tool for Teaching Network Technologies and Network Management

  • S.P. Maj
  • B. Tran
  • D. Veal

Abstract

There are a range of network management tools. One of the simplest, but most commonly used, is the hierarchical text based Command Line Interface (CLI). However, CLI commands typically provide a lot of unnecessary data. Furthermore to manage one protocol operating on a single network device may require a number of different CLI commands. These problems are exacerbated when managing an operational network consisting of populations of different devices each running a number of different protocols. The GUI based CiscoWorks appears to be not widely used. State Model Diagrams (SMDs) extract and diagrammatically integrate the output from different CLI outputs and hence succinctly describe protocol operation. Furthermore, SMDs may be used to describe not only different protocols but also different network devices such as routers, switches, wireless access points etc. SMDs also provide top down decomposition thereby enabling a large complex network to be partitioned into independent units of an amenable size. Using SMDs it is possible to examine the overview of an entire network and also obtain increasing levels of detail whilst still maintaining links and interfaces between the different levels. SMDs have been successfully used as the pedagogical basis of network curriculum. The paper presents the results of a further more extensive pedagogical evaluation. Furthermore, SMDs were evaluated as a network management tool. The results clearly demonstrated that SMD’s were found to be as useful as the CLI for all aspects of network management and, significantly, more useful than Ciscoworks.

Keywords

State Model diagrams network management Cisco CCNA CCNP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Broek and M. Looijen, “Mangement of International Networks,’ International Journal of Network Management, vol. 7, pp. 342-250, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    W. Stalling, Network Management. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. P. Maj, G. Murphy, and G. Kohli, “State Models for Internetworking Technologies,’ presented at 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, GA, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S. P. Maj and G. Kohli, “New State Models for Internetworks Technology,’ Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol. 1, pp. 385-392, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. B. Tucker, B. H. Barnes, R. M. Aiken, K. Barker, K. B. Bruce, J. T. Cain, S. E. Conry, G. L. Engel, R. G. Epstein, D. K. Lidtke, and M. C. Mulder, “A Summary of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Curriculum Task Force Report, Computing Curricula 1991,’ Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. C. S. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery, “Computer Curricula 2001, Computer Science,’ IEEE Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Shackelford and e. al, “Computing Curricula 2005. The Overview Report,’ ACM, AIS, IEEE-CS 2005.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    G. Kohli, S. P. Maj, G. Murphy, and D. Veal, “Abstraction in Computer Network Education: A model based approach,’ presented at ASEE, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2004.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. P. Maj and G. Kohli, “A New State Models for Internetworks Technology,’ Journal of Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, vol. 1, pp. 385-392, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Kohli, S. P. Maj, G. Murphy, and D. Veal, “Abstraction in Computer Network Education,’ presented at 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition (ASEE 2004), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. P. Maj, G. Kohli, and T. Fetherston, “A Pedagogical Evaluation of New State Model Diagrams for Teaching Internetwork Technologies,’ presented at 28th Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC2005), Newcastle, Australia, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning,’ Educational Researcher, pp. 32-42, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. S. Bloom, M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives - The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • S.P. Maj
    • 1
  • B. Tran
    • 1
  • D. Veal
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information ScienceEdith Cowan UniversityMount LawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations