Abstract:
The accuracy of configuration data within routers of a network are critical in today&#39;s networks for security of the network, efficient operating of the network and to ensure corporate requirements, such as redundancy, are met. Since configuration data is typically entered and modified manually by technicians, considerable human errors occur. A configuration validation system provides an automated capability to ensure accuracy within the routers of a network. In this system, the validation is completed utilizing dynamically set conditions based upon the utilization of the router and a characteristic of the router, such as the model type. The utilization of the router includes the services that are supported by the router and the position of the router within the network, both of these criteria of the router having specific configuration requirements. The utilization of the routers can be detected by look-up within an inventory database and/or analysing the applicable configuration data. During the validation process, any discrepancies can be logged. At completion, these discrepancies can be listed within a report of configuration problems to be fixed or be automatically sent to the routers within the network to correct the configuration data.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     The present invention relates generally to communication networks and more specifically to a method and apparatus for configuration validation of devices within communication networks.  
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0002]     Communication networks are comprised of large numbers of interconnected devices, such as routers. Devices can be configured within the network to process communication messages, to interface with their neighbours and to host services. There are various companies that produce network devices and each company has a variety of models with an array of features, the number of models increasing on a regular basis. The network architectures used within these networks today can be complex with considerable security features and options to ensure high consistency, such as redundancy. The services run on the network devices for customers, such as virtual private network services, are growing in number, in security and in quality of service.  
         [0003]     These large number of network device models, architectures and potential services create a very complex environment of configurations within the network devices. These complexities are exponentially increased even further when considering the general need to consistently adjust the network, for example due to network expansions and/or security breaches. When a new network device is added to the network, configurations of numerous network devices must be adjusted. For instance, this is similar in cases that a network device is removed from the network, a source of a worm attack is located and must be isolated or a new service is launched for a particular customer or group of customers. The configurations of the network devices are regularly changing.  
         [0004]     The setting up of the configurations for a network device is typically done based upon a template for the device&#39;s model that is adjusted for the particular device manually by a network technician. As the need arises, the network technician further adjusts the network device configuration to accommodate desired changes within the network (addition/removal of devices, react to worm attacks etc.).  
         [0005]     The accuracy of the configurations set by, the network technicians is critically important to the proper operation, security and efficiency of the network. With incorrect configurations, some potential problems include messages getting improperly routed, security lapses that hackers could exploit and communications being routed via non-ideal links that reflect an incorrect cost and/or bandwidth accounting of links. These problems easily occur due to the manual nature that these configurations are generated and input to the network devices. In all, the configurations are generally complex, critically important and, if maintained in ideal states, could increase the network&#39;s bandwidth while increasing quality of service for the customer. Hence, it is of high importance to ensure that network device configurations remain accurate.  
         [0006]     One solution for ensuring the configurations within the network devices are accurate has been developed by Cisco Systems of San Jose, Calif. called Cisco NetSys Baseliner. In this software, Cisco allows for a static configuration validation of the network devices of the network. These validations are based on a direct comparison between the network devices&#39; configurations and a preset ideal for the particular device. This software further allows pictorial images of the network architecture to be produced and potentially for a network technician to view the configuration data of a particular network device.  
         [0007]     The Cisco NetSys Baseliner does not detect the services being run on the network devices that are being compared and further does not dynamically adjust the ideal settings for the network device based upon its specific utilization. Although the software helps to manage the network by providing a limited validation tool and a graphical user interface for viewing the network architecture, the software has limited use as a complete network configuration validation tool. There are considerable configuration elements that must be reviewed that are unique to specific network elements based upon their model, position within the network and/or the services running on them.  
       SUMMARY OF INVENTION  
       [0008]     The present invention, according to a first broad aspect, is an apparatus for validation of network device configuration data within a network. The apparatus comprises a first interface operable to receive configuration data from a plurality of network devices within the network, a processing unit and a second interface operable to output the results of the processing unit. The processing unit is operable to validate the configuration data for each of the network devices utilizing dynamically set conditions based upon the utilization of the network device and at least one characteristic of the network device. In some implementations, the dynamically set conditions comprise template data defined based upon the utilization of the network device and the at least one characteristic of the network device; this template data potentially stored within a memory unit further within the apparatus.  
         [0009]     In some embodiments of the present invention, the first interface extracts configuration data from a plurality of network devices within the network. In others, the first interface retrieves from memory configuration data for a plurality of network devices within the network. In order to detect either the data related to the utilization of the network device or the at least one characteristic of the network device, in some embodiments, the processing unit extracts information from a network device database and/or analyses the configuration data of the particular network device.  
         [0010]     In particular embodiments of the present invention, the utilization of the network device comprises one or both of the set of services being run on the network device and the position of the network device in the network. The set of services could include no services, a Virtual Private Network (VPN) service, a dial-up Internet service and/or a high speed Internet service. The position of the network device could in some implementations include a border position, a core position and a distribution position. The at least one characteristic could be a model identifier of the network device.  
         [0011]     In some implementations of the present invention, the second interface is a discrepancy report interface that generates a report of discrepancies in the configuration data of the network devices located by the processing unit during the validation of the configuration data. In another implementation, the second interface is a discrepancy repair interface that sends one or more reconfiguration commands to one or more of the network devices in order to correct discrepancies in the configuration data of the network devices located by the processing unit during the validation of the configuration data. After sending the reconfiguration commands, the processing unit in some embodiments re-validates the configuration data for a set of the network devices. This set of network devices could be all of the network devices or a subset, such as the network devices in which at least one discrepancy was found.  
         [0012]     According to a second broad aspect, the present invention is a method for validating network device configuration data within a network. The method includes receiving configuration data from a plurality of network devices within the network; validating the configuration data for each of the network devices utilizing dynamically set conditions based upon the utilization of the network device and at least one characteristic of the network device; and outputting the results of the step of validating the configuration data.  
         [0013]     The present invention, according to a third broad aspect, is a configuration validation system operable to be coupled to a plurality of interconnected network devices, each network device comprising corresponding configuration data. The system includes configuration logic and outputting logic. The configuration validation logic operable to validate the configuration data for each of the network devices utilizing dynamically set conditions based upon the utilization of the network device and at least one characteristic of the network device. The outputting logic operable to output the results of the configuration validation logic.  
         [0014]     According to a fourth broad aspect, the present invention is an apparatus including means for receiving configuration data from a plurality of network devices within the network; means for validating the configuration data for each of the network devices utilizing dynamically set conditions based upon the utilization of the network device and at least one characteristic of the network device; and means for outputting the results of the means for validating. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0015]     Embodiments of the present invention are described with reference to the following figures, in which:  
         [0016]      FIG. 1  is a block diagram illustrating a network configuration validation apparatus according to one embodiment of the present invention;  
         [0017]      FIGS. 2A and 2B  are sample networks that could be utilized with the network configuration validation apparatus of  FIG. 1 ;  
         [0018]      FIG. 3  is a logical block diagram illustrating the components that are input and output from the configuration validation apparatus of  FIG. 1  according to one embodiment of the present invention;  
         [0019]      FIGS. 4A and 4B  are flow chart diagrams illustrating the steps conducted by the processing unit of  FIG. 1  according to first and second embodiments of the present invention; and  
         [0020]      FIG. 5  is a flow chart illustrating the steps conducted by the processing unit of  FIG. 1  when performing the comparison step of  FIGS. 4A and 4B  according to one embodiment of the present invention. 
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT  
       [0021]      FIG. 1  is a block diagram illustrating a network configuration validation apparatus  100  according to one embodiment of the present invention. As depicted, the apparatus  100  comprises a processing unit  102  coupled to a memory device  104  and further coupled to a network interface  106 . In  FIG. 1 , the processing unit  102  is further coupled to a computer  108  while the network interface  106  is coupled to a network  110 .  
         [0022]     In this embodiment of the present invention, the processing unit  102  operates to support network configuration validation logic as will be described in more detail below. It should be understood that although this logic is described as a software program, this logic could be in the form of software, firmware, hardware or any combination thereof. Although depicted as a single processing unit, it should be understood that the processing unit could be a plurality of physical devices.  
         [0023]     The memory device  104 , in this embodiment, operates to store the configuration template data that will be utilized by the network configuration validation logic and potentially store configuration data corresponding to network devices within the network  110  after such data is extracted. It should be understood that this memory device  104  could take numerous forms including, but not limited to, RAM, Flash, a physical hard drive or any combination thereof. Further it should be understood that such a memory device could reside outside of the apparatus  100 .  
         [0024]     The computer  108  can be considered an outputting device for information generated by the processing unit  102 , such as displaying a master list of discrepancies within the configurations of the network devices of the network  110  as will be described below. In alternative embodiments, the outputting device could take a different form. For instance, the outputting device could be the network interface  106  in the case that the outputs of the processing unit  102  are signals for reconfiguring the network devices of network  110  as will also be described in more detail herein below.  
         [0025]     The network interface  106  could be based upon a number of standards including Ethernet. The key is to allow the processing unit  102  to interact with the network devices of the network  110  such that the configuration data for these network devices can be analysed by the processing unit  102 . Therefore, although shown in  FIG. 1  as a separate physical entity from network  110 , apparatus  100  could be integrated within the network  110 , for instance within one of the network devices of network  110 .  
         [0026]      FIGS. 2A and 2B  illustrate two sample networks that could comprise the network  110  of  FIG. 1 . In  FIG. 2A , the network  110  comprises twelve routers  201 - 212  interconnected to provide a selection of services. Each of these routers  201 - 212  is assigned a particular Internet Protocol (IP) address; for instance, router  201  could be assigned IP address 1.1.1.1. Each of the routers  201 - 212  is of a particular position within the network  110 , has a particular set of services running on it and is of a particular product model. As shown in  FIG. 2A , router  201  for example is a model  7200  router produced by Cisco Systems, is positioned as a distribution router and has the Virtual Private Network Edition (VPNE) service running on it.  
         [0027]     In the sample network of  FIG. 2A , there are three positions for the routers  201 - 212 , these being border, core and distribution. As shown, routers  211  and  212  are border routers which are routers that connect with at least one network device of another network, potentially another network with a different network service provider. Routers  210  through  206  are distribution routers (also known commonly as access routers) which are routers that are specifically configured for distributing services to end customers. The distribution routers in this network aggregate most access connections into the core as well as provide data manipulation such as access-lists. In  FIG. 2A , except for two exceptions, the distribution routers are the only routers that are supporting services for customers though, in alternative embodiments, border and core routers could support such services. Routers  207  through  210  are core routers which in the simplified network design of  FIG. 2A  are the highest level of aggregation within the network and typically connect Points of Presence (PoPs) within an internetwork from a Layer 3 perspective. In this case, the core routers  207 - 210  comprise a core infrastructure  200  that all distribution and border routers are coupled. The core infrastructure is focused on processing packets at a high rate, rather than other processing such as services.  
         [0028]     This core infrastructure  200  could comprise many more than four routers and network  110  could comprise significantly more distribution and border routers than are depicted. It should be understood that a network could have different configuration positions for routers within a network and different names for these positions and the present invention should not be limited to networks with the above three defined positions.  
         [0029]     As shown, there are a number of services that could operate within each of the routers  201 - 212  including the Virtual Private Network Edition (VPNE) service, the High Speed Edition (HSE) and the dial-up (DIAL) service. In this example, the VPNE service allows customers to connect to the router using VPN technology, the HSE service allows customers to connect to the router using DSL technology and the DIAL service allows customers to connect to the router with an ISDN connection. It should be understood that the services on the routers could be different than those indicated and the present invention should not be limited to these specific services. In  FIG. 2A , routers  201 ,  204 ,  206  and  212  support the VPNE service; routers  202 ,  204 ,  205 ,  206  and  210  support the HSE service; routers  203 ,  205  and  206  support the DIAL service; and routers  207 ,  208 ,  209  and  211  support no customer services. It should be recognized that each router within network  110  could be configured to support zero, one or more services. In one embodiment, not shown, only distribution routers support services, with core and border routers supporting no services. In this embodiment, the border routers would continue to support transit and pairing which is well known for border routers.  
         [0030]     There are various models for the routers  201 - 212  within the network  110 . For illustration, all routers are either model  7200  routers or model  10000  routers, both produced by Cisco Systems. It should be understood that a network could have one, two or more different router models produced by one or more different companies.  
         [0031]     The network architecture of  FIG. 2A  is designed to ensure redundancy. Each router is paired to another router of the same position while each distribution and border router is coupled to two core routers. In this design, to ensure real physical redundancy, each of the two core routers that a distribution or border router is coupled must be in a physically different location than the other of the two core routers. As shown, distribution routers  201  and  202  are coupled to each other and each further coupled to core routers  207  and  209 ; distribution routers  203  and  204  are coupled to each other and each further coupled to core routers  207  and  208 ; and distribution routers  205  and  206  are coupled to each other and each further coupled to core routers  209  and  210 . Border routers  211  and  212  are coupled to each other and each further coupled to core routers  208  and  210 . Each of the core routers  207 - 210  are coupled to each of the other core routers  207 - 210 . It should be understood that other configuration designs could be used to connect the routers of network  110  and the design illustrated is only one example.  
         [0032]      FIG. 2B  illustrates a modified version of the sample network depicted in  FIG. 2A  in which distribution routers  205  and  206  have been removed and new border routers  213  and  214  have been added. As illustrated, border routers  213  and  214  are coupled to each other and each further coupled to core routers  208  and  210 .  
         [0033]     It should be noted that one skilled in the art could contemplate a different position classification for the routers, a different set of router models and/or a different combination of potential services. The specific positions, models and services provided in  FIGS. 2A and 2B  are meant as examples only and should not be used to limit the scope of the present invention. The networks of  FIGS. 2A and 2B  will be utilized herein below as examples of networks for which the present invention could operate.  
         [0034]      FIG. 3  is a logical block diagram illustrating the components that are input and output from the configuration validation apparatus  100  of  FIG. 1  according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown, the inputs to the apparatus  100  for this embodiment include device configuration files  302 , a device list  304 , a variable list  306 , template files  308  and template resource files  310 . In this embodiment, the device configuration files  302  represent the configuration data for a plurality of network devices and the device list  304  indicates the set of network devices in which configuration validation is requested. This device list  304  could include names for the specific network devices or alternatively their IP addresses. The variable list  306  indicates the set of variables within the device configuration files  302  that are to be compared with the template files  308  (for example: bgp, snmp, etc.). Effectively, the variable list  306  filters the commands within the configuration data to a list of commands that the user would like to validate.  
         [0035]     The template files  308 , in one embodiment, include system templates, security templates, Border Gate Protocol (BGP) templates, Quality of Service (QoS) templates, NetFlow templates and Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) templates, the dynamic use of which will be described herein below in more detail. The template resource files  310  comprise a variety of data that could be required by one or more of the template files  308 ; for instance IP Community lists, route map files and access list files. The output of the apparatus  100 , in this case, is a master discrepancy report  312  that includes a list of all discrepancies that have been found by comparing the variables of variable list  306  within the device configuration files  302  of those network devices within the device list  304  to the appropriate dynamically adjusted template files  308 .  
         [0036]     It should be understood by one skilled in the art that the device list  304  could be removed or alternatively list the devices within the network not to have their configurations validated (effectively a safe configuration list). Further, variable list  306  could be removed or similarly simply provide a list of safe variables that do not have to be validated. Yet further, although the template files are split based upon functional area, a complete master template could be produced that could operate for all routers, as long as the portions of the template could be dynamically selected for use. The template resource files  310  could further be integrated with the templates files  308 , but the advantage of separating this information is that it is easier to modify/correct such information if it is centralized, especially if the particular information may need to be accessed by various template files  308 .  
         [0037]      FIG. 4A  is a flow chart illustrating the steps for network configuration logic conducted by the processing unit  102  of  FIG. 1  according to a first embodiment of the present invention. Firstly, at step  402 , configuration data for a plurality of network devices is extracted. This extraction can take place through any data pull operation such as a publicly available software program entitled “Expect”, a UNIX based toolbox based upon Tool Command Language (Tcl) available for download at the SourceForge.net website: http://sourceforge.net/projects/expect. Alternatively, the extraction could occur with a telnet command such as “show config”, with the results for all of the network devices within a network being logged to a text file.  
         [0038]     As shown at step  404 , the processing unit  102  subsequently, for each router N, compares the configuration data to template data; in some embodiments this template data comprising the template files  308  and template resource files  310 . This comparison is a dynamic comparison based upon the utilization of the particular network device as will be described herein below in detail with reference to  FIG. 5 . The results of this dynamic comparison are potentially a set of discrepancies between the actual configuration data and the dynamically adjusted template data for this particular network device (dynamically adjusted potentially based upon the position, model and services of the particular network device). If, at step  406 , at least one discrepancy is located at step  404 , the details of the discrepancy(s) are logged for router N at step  408 .  
         [0039]     If no discrepancies are located at step  404  or after the logging of the discrepancy(s) at step  408 , the logic running on the processing unit  102  proceeds to determine if all configuration data for-each network device have been compared at step  410 . In the case that network device list  304  is utilized, step  410  could include determining if all of the network devices within the list have had their respective configuration data compared. Alternatively, if no device list is utilized, step  410  could comprise determining if all of extracted configuration data corresponding to the network devices of the network have been compared at step  404 . If additional comparisons are required, the processing unit  102  proceeds at step  412  to the next network device&#39;s configuration data for comparison.  
         [0040]     Once all of the configuration data has been compared to the template data, the processing unit, according to the embodiment of  FIG. 4A , proceeds to generate a master discrepancy report at step  414  based upon the logs of discrepancies that were generated at step  408 . This master discrepancy report can be displayed on the computer  108  of  FIG. 1  or could be printed so that a list of actionable corrections could be made for network technicians to improve the network configurations within the network.  
         [0041]     An example using a sample format for the master discrepancy report is as follows:  
                                   ----------------------------------------       Template &gt;&gt; vpne 7500-system       ----------------------------------------       [service timestamps]       −service timestamps debug datetime msec localtime show-timezone        dis6-torontodc       −service timestamps log datetime msec localtime show-timezone        dis6-torontodc       +service timestamps debug uptime        dis6-torontodc                  
 
         [0042]     In this example, the timestamp configuration for a router called dis 6-torontodc are being validated with use of a template called vpne 7500-system. In this case, dis 6-torontodc is a distribution router with model number 7500 and a VPNE service. The “−”symbol prior to the first two lines of the report indicate that these two lines are missing from the configuration data for router dis  6  -torontodc while the “+” symbol prior to the third line of the report indicates that this line is included in the configuration data but should be removed.  
         [0043]      FIG. 4B  is a flow chart illustrating the steps conducted by the processing unit  102  of  FIG. 1  according to a second embodiment of the present invention. In this implementation, the steps of  FIG. 4A  are the same but rather than logging the discrepancies, the processing unit  102  generates reconfiguration messages for the particular network device with the discrepancy at step  416 . These reconfiguration messages comprise an indication of the router to be reconfigured and the command line to be removed, added or modified. The reconfiguration message automates the work that the network technician would have to conduct after the master discrepancy report was generated in the embodiment of  FIG. 4A . In one embodiment, the reconfiguration messages are sent to a server that stores all of the configuration data for the network devices within the network. These reconfiguration messages are utilized to adjust the configuration data within the server and, subsequently, each of the network devices conducts a file transfer to replace the previous configuration data with the modified configuration data.  
         [0044]     A further difference from  FIG. 4A , is that after all comparisons are complete at step  410 , rather than generate a master discrepancy report, the processing unit  102  determines if any reconfiguration messages were required at step  418 . If no reconfiguration messages were required, the processing unit concludes the configurations are correct. If a reconfiguration message was required, the processing unit  102  returns to the start of the process to ensure the reconfiguration has subsequently “fixed” the discrepancy. This validation of the reconfiguration could be removed from this embodiment or limited to only those network devices that required a reconfiguration message. Hence, if only a select few network devices within a network required a reconfiguration message, only the configuration data of those select network devices would be extracted at step  402  or alternatively only those select network devices would be listed within the network device list for the validation.  
         [0045]     One should understand, although not shown in  FIG. 4B , any required reconfiguration messages could be sent in many forms, including within a master reconfiguration message that is transmitted throughout the network. In this case, each required reconfiguration would be listed with a network device identifier (such as the router name or device IP address) of the appropriate network device to be reconfigured. Further, the reconfiguration messages could simply be transmitted simultaneously at the completion of the entire comparison process.  
         [0046]      FIG. 5  is a flow chart illustrating the steps conducted by the processing unit  102  of  FIG. 1  when performing the comparison step  404  of  FIGS. 4A and 4B  according to one embodiment of the present invention. As shown in  FIG. 5 , firstly the processing unit  102  determines, at step  502 , the model of the network device, the position of the network device within the network and the services running on the network device. This determination could be conducted in a number of manners. Firstly, if a consistent naming convention is utilized within the network, the name of the network device could be used to indicate the position of the network component within the network or possibly even the model and/or services. In one example, the name of the network devices could have different extensions depending upon whether the device was a border device, a core device or a distribution device.  
         [0047]     Another technique for performing step  502  is to conduct a look-up of an internal Internet Protocol (IP) asset database system (which could also be known as a network device database). Action Request System (ARS) produced by Remedy Corporation of Sunnyvale, Calif. is a product available which can be programmed to operate as an IP asset database which would allow queries on specific router data information such as position, services and model; although ARS is not specifically designed for such purpose. In one embodiment, the ARS, when queried, indicates the model of the network device and could further indicate the services being run within the network device. The ARS in other embodiments is extended to also include the position of the network device within the network as standard elements for look-up.  
         [0048]     Yet another technique for performing step  502  is to have processing unit  102  analyse the configuration data extracted from the particular network device. In this technique for instance, specific commands unique to a particular service are monitored for. For example, there are unique ISDN commands that indicate a dial-up service is available on a particular network device. Another example is for the processing unit  102  to search for VPN Routing/Forwarding commands which would identify a network device with VPNE service being run. Yet further examples could be contemplated for identifying the position of the network devices. For instance, a network device including a routemap containing neighbours from an outside network would clearly be a border network device.  
         [0049]     It should be understood that each of these techniques is not necessarily operated in isolation and further techniques for identifying a network devices model, position and service(s) could be used based upon the protocols and standard operating procedures of the network service provider. In some embodiments of the present invention for instance a combination of all of the above techniques are used to identify the utilization characteristics of the network device and verify the accuracy of this information. One verification technique for instance could be to have a specific service, such as HSE, only operate on specific models of network devices or no services to be operated on a particular position of device, such as core network devices.  
         [0050]     Further, it should be understood that although step  502  is specific to determining the model, position and services of the network device, this should not limit the scope of the present invention. Other utilization characteristics could be identified at this step and used in subsequent steps to dynamically adapt the comparison between the configuration data and the template data. Alternatively, not all of these characteristics could potentially be utilized.  
         [0051]     Subsequent to step  502 , the processing unit proceeds to dynamically compare at step  504  the configuration data of the network device with primary template data based upon the utilization characteristics of the network device, including potentially the model, position and/or services being supported. In one embodiment of the present invention as depicted in  FIG. 5 , this primary comparison can be broken down into a comparison of the configuration data to the BGP template data at step  506 , to the system template data at step  508  and to the security template data at step  510 .  
         [0052]     The comparison of configuration data to BGP template data at step  506  comprises a series of validations based on dynamic logic as will now be described through the configuration data example below. 
        Router BGP 123 
            neighbour 1.1.1.2 remote AS 123 routemap IBGP-out     neighbour 1.1.2.1 remote AS 345 routemap IBGP-out    
               
 
         [0056]     In this example, the processing unit  102  ensures for each local neighbour (that is neighbours within its Autonomous System (AS)) that there is a routemap and that this routemap follows the correct naming convention for the company. In the example above, it can be seen that the first neighbour is a local neighbour while the second neighbour is not. It should be understood that there could be large numbers of neighbours.  
         [0057]     Further, the processing unit  102  ensures that each routemap for each local neighbour exists within the network device configuration data and yet further checks the integrity of the routemap in the configuration data. Determining the integrity of the routemap is completed by validating the components of the routemap including Access lists, IP Community lists and Prefix lists. For each of these sets of lists within each routemap, the processing unit  102  ensures that the list exists within the configuration data of the network device. Further, the processing unit  102  ensures that the list within the configuration data follows the rules set-up by the company operating the network. For instance, the IP access may not allow private IP space (ex. 10.0.0.0→10.255.255.255; 172.16.0.0→172.31.255.255; 192.168.0.0→192.168.255.255) to be accessed and therefore IP addresses from private IP space would not be permitted on any Access lists. It should be understood that the above routemap validation is only one embodiment. In other embodiments, the routemap, access lists, IP community lists and/or prefix lists could be compared to preset routemaps or lists set-up in the template resource files  310  defined by a set of rules to be applied depending upon the services or customers of the network device being reviewed. It should be understood that the present invention is not limited in scope by the sample neighbour list structure and format described above. Other formats for neighbour lists and routemaps could be contemplated.  
         [0058]     Within some embodiments of the present invention, there are additional validations that are required based upon the utilization of the network device in which the processing unit  102  detects. For instance, there could be minimum numbers of neighbours allowed for network devices of a particular position. In particular, border network devices may be forced to have a minimum of two or three local neighbours to ensure proper redundancy in case of a problem. In this case, there could be a further validation that the redundant links are to neighbours within different physical locations. This type of validation is particularly important when checking that corporate policies are being applied correctly by the network technicians.  
         [0059]     Referring to  FIG. 2A  for example, router  211  is depicted as having three local neighbours; two with core routers  208 , 210  and one with border router  212 . If human error resulted in two of these neighbours not being configured within the router  211 , a discrepancy would occur since router  211  would have insufficient protection (not the required two links). Further, even if two local neighbours were configured properly such as with router  208  and route  212 , if either of these routers were physically located with router  211  or if routers  208  and  212  were physically located together, a discrepancy would be recorded.  
         [0060]     The comparison of the configuration data to the system template data at step  508 , according to many embodiments, is based upon the model of the network device, the service(s) being run on the network device and potentially the position of the network device as detected by the processing unit  102 . Some items that are validated in various embodiments of the present invention using the system template data include ensuring: 
        1. The Network Time Protocol (NTP) configuration exists for the router clock;     2. Any Access lists within the configuration data exist and correctly abide by all corporate rules and policies;     3. Logging configuration commands have correct logging servers indicated;     4. The Domain Name Server (DNS) configuration is resolved properly between domain names and host names;     5. The boot system exists and has proper integrity;     6. Clock configuration and time zone information is correct for the location of the network device (potentially retrieving the location of the network device from the naming convention of the device or through the ARS system described above);     7. Private IP space is not accessible through the network device via Access lists; and     8. The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) configuration has an Access list applied to it which is configured correctly.        
 
         [0069]     It should be understood that the above list is meant only as a list of examples and not as a comprehensive list of items that the system template data could validate within the configuration data of a network device. The system template data could include one or more of these items and/or could comprise other items not shown.  
         [0070]     The comparison of the configuration data to the security template data at step  510 , according to many embodiments of the present invention, is based upon the model of the network device, as well as potentially the position and services being supported by the network device. For instance, in the case that the network device is a border device, one additional validation within the security template data is to validate the IP community lists within the routemap abides by all security rules. These security rules could be based upon a per customer basis. Finding discrepancies in the IP community lists is particularly important to ensure that border network elements have the most up-to-date and accurate limitations being applied. A further security template validation required is to validate the Terminal Access Controller Access Control System (TACACS) configuration and Access list.  
         [0071]     Further, the dynamic adjustment of the comparisons based upon the utilization of the network device further allows very unique network service provider policies to be reflected for particular services. For instance, one concern with network devices supporting HSE connections is that a hacker could gain access to the network by setting up an authorized account, but the network service provider might not detect the breach since it is assumed that the unauthorized account is simply another ISDN account. To overcome this, in some embodiments of the present invention, the security template data adds an additional validation for HSE enabled network devices. In this case, the processing unit  102  monitors for the number of usernames on the network device and subtracts the number of ISDN account on the device. If the result is greater than the allowable number of administrative usernames (for example, in one embodiment three), a discrepancy is detected and logged. In  FIG. 2A , this particular security condition would be verified on Routers  203 ,  205  and  206 ; those with ISDN services being supported.  
         [0072]     After the primary comparisons at step  504 , the processing unit  102  proceeds to compare the configuration data to specifically targeted templates based upon the network devices utilization. At step  512 , if the network device supports a VPNE service, the configuration data is compared to a QoS template at step  514 . The QoS template utilized in this case is further determined based upon the media speed of the network device (for example OC3, OC48, OC192, etc.) which can be detected from the interface information within the configuration data. In one example, only VPNE service interfaces have QoS operations running and therefore the QoS validation would only be required on routers  201 ,  204 ,  206  and  212  within  FIG. 2A . It should be understood that other criteria based upon the utilization of the network device could dictate the need for validation of the configuration data with the QoS template.  
         [0073]     Next, at step  516 , the processing unit  102  determines whether the network device being compared to template data is being utilized as a border network device. In this specific implementation, only border network devices require Net Flow and therefore, only border network devices require their configuration data to be compared to the netflow template data at step  518 . In this implementation, within  FIG. 2A , routers  211  and  212  would require netflow validation. In other implementations, Net Flow could be required by a set of network devices based upon a different utilization.  
         [0074]     At step  520 , the processing unit  102  compares the configuration data with the OSPF template. In one embodiment, all interfaces not connected to customers or other Internet Service Providers (ISP) are validated to ensure the OSPF portion of the software code is correct. Therefore, in many embodiments, all interfaces for core routers are validated for OSPF while all inward facing interfaces within border and distribution routers are also validated.  
         [0075]     At the end of the flow chart of  FIG. 5 , the results from all comparisons with all templates are combined into a discrepancy report, at step  522 , in which all discrepancies that were identified are logged. It should be understood by one skilled in the art that although described as six different sets of template data, these could be combined or further divided in different groupings of validation templates.  
         [0076]     Some advantages of the validation systems according to an embodiment of the present invention can be highlighted with reference to  FIGS. 2A and 2B . In  FIG. 2B , routers  205  and  206  have been removed from network  110  and border routers  213  and  214  have been added to form new network  110  a. Further, router  202  has changed its service from the HSE service to the VPNE service.  
         [0077]     In this case, through validation of the configuration data of routers  209  and  210 , it can be confirmed that no dead-end open connections are still configured for previous routers  205  and  206  and all routemaps and IP community lists have been appropriately updated. Further, it can be validated that all routers previously coupled to these removed routers still abide by all corporate rules such as redundancy requirements. With the addition of routers  213  and  214  within network  110  a, the validation system according to an embodiment of the present invention can ensure that the configuration data for each of these new routers was entered correctly and that all configuration data abides by the required conditions for their utilization (set of services and position within the network) and model. Further, the validation system ensures that the other routers coupled to the new routers are configured properly. Finally, if the validation system of an embodiment of the present invention detects a service change, such as router  202  changing from supporting HSE service to VPNE service (or alternatively a service being terminated or added to a router), the validation system ensures that all proper conditions have been validated. For instance, in the change of service in router  202 , it could be required that the QoS template be validated for any router supporting VPNE service. Therefore, the validation system would determine if the QoS component was added to the configuration data of router  202  and whether it was properly configured. It should be understood that there are numerous other examples of benefits for validating the configuration data of a set of routers and the above described examples should not limit the scope of the present invention.  
         [0078]     Persons skilled in the art will appreciate that there are yet more alternatives implementations and modifications possible for implementing the present invention, and that the above implementation is only an illustration of this embodiment of the invention. The scope of the invention, therefore, is only to be limited by the claims appended hereto.