ssh – Network management systems with "manager-agents" architecture

Question:

I am writing an explanatory note to my graduation project. In the first section, I describe what the administration of computer networks is. I spoke about the architecture of "manager-agents" network management systems. Then he gave examples of the implementation of this architecture: SNMP, CMIP.

Question : are such protocols as ssh, telnet, rdp network management systems with "manager-agents" architecture?

For example, you can install ssh servers on all machines in the network, which will be agents, and the ssh client on the administrator's machine will be the manager.

Answer:

All of the above are remote control tools. They can be used to build both a centralized management system (agent-manager, client-server) and a distributed one. The fact that the administrator can connect to any machine from his workplace does not in itself negate the fact that each machine will have its own administrator account and he will have to configure each of the machines on the network separately. But at the same time, no one forbids connecting via the same SSH, for example, to a RADIUS server or a Cisco controller and changing the settings of all WiFi points at once, without going to each of them separately. Using the SNMP protocol you gave as an example, you can build a centralized management and monitoring system, but it is not a system by itself.

The essence of a centralized control system is that all subordinate nodes of the network are controlled by one or a group of servers. Those. you make changes to the parameters on the server, and the agents themselves (or after a kick from the server) pick up and apply them. At the same time, it is practically not important which protocols will be used for this, since it depends on the tasks being solved by a specific control system. A control system is a complex of measures and means, but not like one specific protocol or technology.

If we are to give an example of centralized management, then as a variant of Active Directory and / or * nix-analogs with full control of all stations in the subordinate network, centralized configuration of OS parameters, etc., or the same Kaspersky with its agents and the administration server. If there are no strict requirements for specific solutions – look towards the well-known brands MS, HP, Cisco, Citrix, etc., they, as a rule, have rather detailed descriptions of architectural solutions from which it is quite possible to make a squeeze for a diploma.

Scroll to Top