- Troubleshooting Methodologies
- Implementing Troubleshooting Procedures
- Integrating Troubleshooting into the Network Maintenance Process
- Summary
- Review Questions
This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
This chapter is from the book
Integrating Troubleshooting into the Network Maintenance Process
Troubleshooting is a process that takes place as part of many different network maintenance tasks. For example, it might be necessary to troubleshoot issues arisen after implementation of new devices. Similarly, it could be necessary to troubleshoot after a network maintenance task such as a software upgrade. Consequently, troubleshooting processes should be integrated into network maintenance procedures and vice versa. When troubleshooting procedures and maintenance procedures are properly aligned, the overall network maintenance process will be more effective.
Troubleshooting and Network Maintenance
Network maintenance involves many different tasks, some of which are listed within Figure 2-11. For some of these tasks, such as supporting users, responding to network failures, or disaster recovery, troubleshooting is a major component of the tasks. Tasks that do not revolve around fault management, such as adding or replacing equipment, moving servers and users, and performing software upgrades, will regularly include troubleshooting processes, too. Hence, troubleshooting should not be seen as a standalone process, but as an essential skill that plays an important role in many different types of network maintenance tasks.
)
Figure 2-11 Troubleshooting Plays an Important Role in Many Network Maintenance Tasks
To troubleshoot effectively, you must rely on many processes and resources that are part of the network maintenance process. You need to have access to up-to-date and accurate documentation. You rely on good backup and restore procedures to be able to roll back changes if they do not resolve the problem that you are troubleshooting. You need to have a good baseline of the network so that you know which conditions are supposed to be normal on your network and what kind of behavior is considered abnormal. Also, you need to have access to logs that are properly time stamped to find out when particular events have happened. So in many ways, the quality of your troubleshooting processes depends significantly on the quality of your network maintenance processes. Therefore, it makes sense to plan and implement troubleshooting activities as part of the overall network maintenance process and to make sure that troubleshooting processes and maintenance processes are aligned and support each other, making both processes more effective.
Documentation
Having accurate and current network documentation can tremendously increase the speed and effectiveness of troubleshooting processes. Having good network diagrams can especially help in quickly isolating problems to a particular part of the network, tracing the flow of traffic, and verifying connections between devices. Having a good IP address schematic and patching administration is invaluable, too, and can save a lot of time while trying to locate devices and IP addresses. Figure 2-12 shows some network documentation that is always valuable to have.
)
Figure 2-12 Network Documentation Increases Troubleshooting Efficiency
On the other hand, documentation that is wrong or outdated is often worse than having no documentation at all. If the documentation that you have is inaccurate or out-of-date, you might start working with information that is wrong and you might end up drawing the wrong conclusions and potentially lose a lot of time before you discover that the documentation is incorrect and cannot be relied upon.
Although everyone who is involved in network maintenance will agree that updating documentation is an essential part of network maintenance tasks, they will all recognize that in the heat of the moment, when you are troubleshooting a problem that is affecting network connectivity for many users, documenting the process and any changes that you are making is one of the last things on your mind. There are several ways to alleviate this problem. First, make sure that any changes you make during troubleshooting are handled in accordance with normal change procedures (if not during the troubleshooting process itself, then at least after the fact). You might loosen the requirements concerning authorization and scheduling of changes during major failures, but you have to make sure that after the problem has been solved or a workaround has been implemented to restore connectivity, you always go through any of the standard administrative processes like updating the documentation. Because you know that you will have to update the documentation afterward, there is an incentive to keep at least a minimal log of the changes that you make while troubleshooting.
One good policy to keep your documentation accurate, assuming that people will forget to update the documentation, is to schedule regular checks of the documentation. However, verifying documentation manually is tedious work, so you will probably prefer to implement an automated system for that. For configuration changes, you could implement a system that downloads all device configurations on a regular basis and compares the configuration to the last version to spot any differences. There are also various IOS features such as the Configuration Archive, Rollback feature, and the Embedded Event Manager that can be leveraged to create automatic configuration backups, to log configuration commands to a syslog server, or to even send out configuration differences via e-mail.
Creating a Baseline
An essential troubleshooting technique is to compare what is happening on the network to what is expected or to what is normal on the network. Whenever you spot abnormal behavior in an area of the network that is experiencing problems, there is a good chance that it is related to the problems. It could be the cause of the problem, or it could be another symptom that might help point toward the underlying root cause. Either way, it is always worth investigating abnormal behavior to find out whether it is related to the problem. For example, suppose you are troubleshooting an application problem, and while you are following the path between the client and the server, you notice that one of the routers is also a bit slow in its responses to your commands. You execute the show processes cpu command and notice that the average CPU load over the past 5 seconds was 97 percent and over the last 1 minute was around 39 percent. You might wonder if this router's high CPU utilization might be the cause of the problem you are troubleshooting. On one hand, this could be an important clue that is worth investigating, but on the other hand, it could be that your router regularly runs at 40 percent to 50 percent CPU and it is not related to this problem at all. In this case, you could potentially waste a lot of time trying to find the cause for the high CPU load, while it is entirely unrelated to the problem at hand.
The only way to know what is normal for your network is to measure the network's behavior continuously. Knowing what to measure is different for each network. In general, the more you know, the better it is, but obviously this has to be balanced against the effort and cost involved in implementing and maintaining a performance management system. The following list describes some useful data to gather and create a baseline:
- Basic performance statistics such as the interface load for critical network links and the CPU load and memory usage of routers and switches: These values can be polled and collected on a regular basis using SNMP and graphed for visual inspection.
- Accounting of network traffic: Remote Monitoring (RMON), Network Based Application Recognition (NBAR), or NetFlow statistics can be used to profile different types of traffic on the network.
- Measurements of network performance characteristics: The IP SLA feature in Cisco IOS can be used to measure critical performance indicators such as delay and jitter across the network infrastructure.
These baseline measurements are useful for troubleshooting, but they are also useful inputs for capacity planning, network usage accounting, and SLA monitoring. Clearly, a synergy exists between gathering traffic and performance statistics as part of regular network maintenance and using those statistics as a baseline during troubleshooting. Moreover, once you have the infrastructure in place to collect, analyze, and graph network statistics, you can also leverage this infrastructure to troubleshoot specific performance problems. For example, if you notice that a router crashes once a week and you suspect a memory leak as the cause of this issue, you could decide to graph the router's memory usage for a certain period of time to see whether you can find a correlation between the crashes and the memory usage.
Communication and Change Control
Communication is an essential part of the troubleshooting process. To review, the main phases of structured troubleshooting are as follows:
- Step 1. Defining the problem
- Step 2. Gathering facts
- Step 3. Analyzing information
- Step 4. Eliminating possibilities
- Step 5. Proposing a hypothesis
- Step 6. Testing the hypothesis
- Step 7. Solving the problem
Figure 2-13 shows several spots where, while performing structured troubleshooting, communication is necessary if not inevitable.
)
Figure 2-13 Communication Plays a Role in All Phases of Structured Troubleshooting
Within each phase of the troubleshooting process, communication plays a role:
- Defining the problem: Even though this is the first step of the structured troubleshooting, it is triggered by the user reporting the problem. Reporting the problem and defining the problem are not the same. When someone reports a problem, it is often too vague to act on it immediately. You have to verify the problem and gather as much information as you can about the symptoms from the person who reported the problem. Asking good questions and carefully listening to the answers is essential in this phase. You might ask questions such as these: "What do you mean exactly when you say that something is failing? Did you make any changes before the problem started? Did you notice anything special before this problem started? When did it last work? Has it ever worked?" After you communicate with the users and perhaps see the problems for yourself, and so on, you make a precise and clear problem definition. Clearly, this step is all about communication.
- Gathering facts: During this phase of the process, you will often depend on other engineers or users to gather information for you. You might need to obtain information contained in server or application logs, configurations of devices that you do not manage, information about outages from a service provider, or information from users in different locations, to compare against the location that is experiencing the problem. Clearly, communicating what information you need and how that information can be obtained determines how successfully you can acquire the information you really need.
- Analyzing information and eliminate possibilities: In itself, interpretation and analysis is mostly a solitary process, but there are still some communication aspects to this phase. First of all, you cannot be experienced in every aspect of networking, so if you find that you are having trouble interpreting certain results or if you lack knowledge about certain processes, you can ask specialists on your team to help you out. Also, there is always a chance that you are misinterpreting results, misreading information, making wrong assumptions, or are having other flaws in your interpretation and analysis. A different viewpoint can often help in these situations, so discussing your reasoning and results with teammates to validate your assumptions and conclusions can be very helpful, especially when you are stuck.
- Proposing and testing a hypothesis: Most of the time, testing a hypothesis involves making changes to the network. These changes may be disruptive, and users may be impacted. Even if you have decided that the urgency of the problem outweighs the impact and the change will have to be made, you should still communicate clearly what you are doing and why you are doing it. Even if your changes will not have a major impact on the users or the business, you should still coordinate and communicate any changes that you are making. When other team members are working on the same problem, you have to make sure that you are not both making changes. Any results from the elimination process might be rendered invalid if a change was made during the information-gathering phase and you were not aware of it. Also, if two changes are made in quick succession and it turns out that the problem was resolved, you will not know which of the two changes actually fixed it. This does not mean that you cannot be working on the same problem as a team, but you have to adhere to certain rules. Having multiple people working on different parts of the network, gathering information in parallel or pursuing different strategies, can help in finding the cause faster. During a major disaster, when every minute counts, the extra speed that you can gain by working in parallel may prove valuable. However, any changes or other disruptive actions should be carefully coordinated and communicated.
- Solving the problem: Clearly, this phase also involves some communication. You must report back to the person who originally reported the problem that the problem has been solved. Also, you must communicate this to any other people who were involved during the process. Finally, you will have to go through any communication that is involved in the normal change processes, to make sure that the changes that you made are properly integrated in the standard network maintenance processes.
Sometimes it is necessary to escalate the problem to another person or another group. Common reasons for this could be that you do not have sufficient knowledge and skills and you want to escalate the problem to a specialist or to a more senior engineer, or that you are working in shifts and you need to hand over the problem as your shift ends. Handing the troubleshooting task over to someone else does not only require clear communication of the results of your process, such as gathered information and conclusions that you have drawn, but it also includes any communication that has been going on up to this point. This is where an issue-tracking or trouble-ticketing system can be of tremendous value, especially if it integrates well with other means of communication such as e-mail.
Finally, another communication process that requires some attention is how to communicate the progress of your troubleshooting process to the business (management or otherwise). When you are experiencing a major outage, there will usually be a barrage of questions from business managers and users such as "What are you doing to repair this issue? How long will it take before it is solved? Can you implement any workarounds? What do you need to fix this?" Although these are all reasonable questions, the truth is that many of these questions cannot be answered until the cause of the problem is found. At the same time, all the time spent communicating about the process is taken away from the actual troubleshooting effort itself. Therefore, it is worthwhile to streamline this process, for instance by having one of the senior team members act as a conduit for all communication. All questions are routed to this person, and any updates and changes are communicated to him; this person will then update the key stakeholders. This way, the engineers who are actually working on the problem can work with a minimal amount of distraction.
Change Control
Change control is one of the most fundamental processes in network maintenance. By strictly controlling when changes are made, defining what type of authorization is required and what actions need to be taken as part of that process, you can reduce the frequency and duration of unplanned outages and thereby increase the overall uptime of your network. You must therefore understand how the changes made as part of troubleshooting fit into the overall change processes. Essentially, there is not anything different between making a change as part of the maintenance process or as part of troubleshooting. Most of the actions that you take are the same. You implement the change, verify that it achieved the desired results, roll back if it did not achieve the desired results, back up the changed configurations or software, and document/communicate your changes. The biggest difference between regular changes and emergency changes is the authorization required to make a change and the scheduling of the change. Within change-control procedures, there is always an aspect of balancing urgency, necessity, impact, and risk. The outcome of this assessment will determine whether a change can be executed immediately or if it will have to be scheduled at a later time.
The troubleshooting process can benefit tremendously from having well-defined and well-documented change processes. It is uncommon for devices or links just to fail from one moment to the next. In many cases, problems are triggered or caused by some sort of change. This can be a simple change, such as changing a cable or reconfiguring a setting, but it may also be more subtle, like a change in traffic patterns due to the outbreak of a new worm or virus. A problem can also be caused by a combination of changes, where the first change is the root cause of the problem, but the problem is not triggered until you make another change. For example, imagine a situation where somebody accidentally erases the router software from its flash. This will not cause the router to fail immediately, because it is running IOS from its RAM. However, if that router reboots because of a short power failure a month later, it will not boot, because it is missing the IOS in its flash memory. In this example, the root cause of the failure is the erased software, but the trigger is the power failure. This type of problem is harder to catch, and only in tightly controlled environments will you be able to find the root cause or prevent this type of problem. In the previous example, a log of all privileged EXEC commands executed on this router can reveal that the software had been erased at a previous date. You can conclude that one of the useful questions you can ask during fact gathering is "Has anything been changed?" The answer to this question can very likely be found in the network documentation or change logs if network policies enforce rigid documentation and change-control procedures.