skip to main content
10.1145/2491185.2491197acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Leveraging SDN layering to systematically troubleshoot networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 August 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Today's networks are maintained by "masters of complexity": network admins who have accumulated the wisdom to troubleshoot complex problems, despite a limiting toolset. This position paper advocates a more structured troubleshooting approach that leverages architectural layering in Software-Defined Networks (SDNs). In all networks, high-level intent (policy) must correctly map to low-level forwarding behavior (hardware configuration). In SDNs, intent is explicitly expressed, forwarding semantics are explicitly defined, and each architectural layer fully specifies the behavior of the network. Building on these observations, we show how recently-developed troubleshooting tools fit into a coherent workflow that detects mistranslations between layers to precisely localize sources of errant control logic. Our goals are to explain the overall picture, show how the pieces fit together to enable a systematic workflow, and highlight the questions that remain. Once this workflow is realized, network admins can formally verify that their network is operating correctly, automatically troubleshoot bugs, and systematically track down their root cause -- freeing admins to fix problems, rather than diagnose their symptoms.

References

  1. Amazon S3 Availability Event: July 20, 2008. http://status.aws.amazon.com/s3--20080720.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. OpenStack Quantum. http://wiki.openstack.org/Quantum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. NOX commit c3fa89a8e5. http://noxrepo.org/git/nox-classic/commit/c3fa89a8e5, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Beschastnikh, Y. Brun, S. Schneider, M. Sloan, and M. D. Ernst. Leveraging existing instrumentation to automatically infer invariant-constrained models. FSE, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Canini, D. Venzano, P. Peresini, D. Kostic, and J. Rexford. A NICE Way to Test OpenFlow Applications. In NSDI, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Chandy and L. Lamport. Distributed snapshots: determining global states of distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Clark, C. Partridge, J. Ramming, and J. Wroclawski. A knowledge plane for the internet. In SIGCOMM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Foster, R. Harrison, M. Freedman, C. Monsanto, J. Rexford, A. Story, and D. Walker. Frenetic: A network programming language. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. N. Gude, T. Koponen, J. Pettit, B. Pfaff, M. Casado, N. McKeown, and S. Shenker. NOX: Towards an Operating System for Networks. CCR, 38, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Heller, N. Handigol, V. Jeyakumar, N. McKeown, and D. Mazières. Where is the debugger for my Software-Defined Network? In HotSDN, August 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. HP Switch Software OpenFlow Supplement. http://bizsupport2.austin.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c0317024%3/c03170243.pdf, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. P. Kazemian, M. Chang, H. Zeng, G. Varghese, N. McKeown, and S. Whyte. Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis. In NSDI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Kazemian, G. Varghese, and N. McKeown. Header Space Analysis: Static Checking For Networks. In NSDI, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Khurshid, X. Zou, W. Zhou, M. Caesar, and P. Brighton Godfrey. VeriFlow: Verifying Network-Wide Invariants in Real Time. In NSDI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. T. Koponen, M. Casado, N. Gude, J. Stribling, L. Poutievski, M. Zhu, R. Ramanathan, Y. Iwata, H. Inoue, T. Hama, and S. Shenker. Onix: A Distributed Control Platform for Large-scale Production Networks. OSDI '10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Kuzniar, P. Peresini, M. Canini, D. Venzano, and D. Kostic. A soft way for openflow switch interoperability testing. In CoNEXT, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. H. Mai, A. Khurshid, R. Agarwal, M. Caesar, P. B. Godfrey, and S. T. King. Debugging the Data Plane with Anteater. SIGCOMM '11, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. The Modular Network-in-a-Box: What Could Happen if SDN Thinks Big. http://packetpushers.net/the-modular-network-in-a-box.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. C. Monsanto, J. Reich, N. Foster, J. Rexford, and D. Walke. Composing software-defined networks. NSDI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. The OpenFlow Switch. http://www.openflowswitch.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. F. Qin, J. Tucek, and Y. Zhou. Treating bugs as allergies: a safe method for surviving software failures. HotOS, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Scott, A. Wundsam, S. Whitlock, A. Or, E. Huang, K. Zarifis, and S. Shenker. How Did We Get Into This Mess? Isolating Fault-Inducing Inputs to SDN Control Software. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2013--8, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. C. Scott, A. Wundsam, K. Zarifis, and S. Shenker. What, Where, and When: Software Fault Localization for SDN. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2012--178, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Shenker. The Future of Networking, and the Past of Protocols. In Open Networking Summit, October 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. A. Wundsam, D. Levin, S. Seetharaman, and A. Feldmann. OFRewind: enabling record and replay troubleshooting for networks. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. M. Yabandeh, N. Knezevic, D. Kostic, and V. Kuncak. Crystalball: predicting and preventing inconsistencies in deployed distributed systems. NSDI, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. H. Zeng, P. Kazemian, G. Varghese, and N. McKeown. Automatic Test Packet Generation. In CoNEXT, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Leveraging SDN layering to systematically troubleshoot networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HotSDN '13: Proceedings of the second ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Hot topics in software defined networking
      August 2013
      182 pages
      ISBN:9781450321785
      DOI:10.1145/2491185

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 August 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      HotSDN '13 Paper Acceptance Rate38of84submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate88of198submissions,44%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader