skip to main content
10.1145/2774993.2775010acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

EdgePlex: decomposing the provider edge for flexibilty and reliability

Published:17 June 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

The service provider edge is responsible for connecting customers using standard protocols such as IP and BGP to the service providers internal network while enforcing service specific policies and service guarantees. Today this function is performed by the Provider Edge Router (PE). The specialized nature of the PE, however, restricts operational flexibility and their monolithic design impacts reliability. In this paper, we propose a new edge router architecture following SDN and NFV principals called EdgePlex. EdgePlex is a distributed system where the functions performed by a traditional edge router are decomposed and assigned to different elements in the system. A key aspect of our design is the use of a sandboxed environment (through the use of virtual machines) per customer. This gives EdgePlex the ability to isolate customers from one-another and independently move customers within and across EdgePlex platforms. We describe the architecture and a prototype implementation of EdgePlex. We perform detailed experiments using this prototype and show that EdgePlex is able to saturate the server in terms of throughput while having acceptable latency and jitter overheads. Our results lead us to believe that the EdgePlex design not only addresses the limitations of existing routers, but is also viable and can meet performance demands of production networks.

References

  1. DPDK. http://dpdk.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Open vSwitch. http://openvswitch.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. PFQ. http://www.pfq.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. PF_RING. http://www.ntop.org/products/pf_ring/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. SR-IOV. https://www.pcisig.com/specifications/iov/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. VMDq. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/virtualization/vmdq-technology-paper.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. VMware. http://www.vmware.com/pdf/virtualization.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Agrawal, S. R. Bailey, A. Greenberg, J. Pastor, P. Sebos, S. Seshan, J. van der Merwe, and J. Yates. RouterFarm: towards a dynamic, manageable network edge. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Internet network management, Pisa, Italy, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Barham, B. Dragovic, K. Fraser, S. Hand, T. Harris, A. Ho, R. Neugebauer, I. Pratt, and A. Warfield. Xen and the Art of Virtualization. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Cisco. Cisco Cloud Services Router 1000V Series. http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/routers/cloud-services-router-1000v-series/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. B. Cully, G. Lefebvre, D. Meyer, M. Feeley, N. Hutchinson, and A. Warfield. Remus: High availability via asynchronous virtual machine replication. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, April 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Dobrescu, N. Egi, K. Argyraki, B.-G. Chun, K. Fall, G. Iannaccone, A. Knies, M. Manesh, and S. Ratnasamy. RouteBricks: Exploiting Parallelism to Scale Software Routers. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Gember-Jacobson, R. Viswanathan, C. Prakash, R. Grandl, J. Khalid, S. Das, and A. Akella. OpenNF: Enabling Innovation in Network Function Control. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Chicago, IL, USA, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Han, K. Jang, K. Park, and S. Moon. PacketShader: A GPU-accelerated Software Router. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Hwang, K. K. Ramakrishnan, and T. Wood. NetVM: High Performance and Flexible Networking Using Virtualization on Commodity Platforms. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Seattle, WA, Apr. 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Juniper. Virtual Router for Enterprise & Service Provider Networks. http://www.juniper.net/us/en/products-services/routing/mx-series/vmx/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. E. Keller, J. Rexford, and J. van der Merwe. Seamless BGP Migration With Router Grafting. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, San Jose, CA, USA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Kivity, Y. Kamay, D. Laor, U. Lublin, and A. Liguori. kvm: the Linux Virtual Machine Monitor. In Proceedings of the Linux Symposium, volume 1, pages 225--230, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, June 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Kohler, R. Morris, B. Chen, J. Jannotti, and M. F. Kaashoek. The Click Modular Router. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 18(3): 263--297, Aug. 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Martins, M. Ahmed, C. Raiciu, V. Olteanu, M. Honda, R. Bifulco, and F. Huici. ClickOS and the Art of Network Function Virtualization. In Proceedings of USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. K. K. Ram, A. L. Cox, M. Chadha, and S. Rixner. Hyper-switch: A Scalable Software Virtual Switching Architecture. In Proceedings of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. L. Rizzo. Netmap: A Novel Framework for Fast Packet I/O. In Proceedings of USENIX Annual Technical Conference, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. L. Rizzo and G. Lettieri. VALE, a Switched Ethernet for Virtual Machines. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. Sebos, J. Yates, G. Li, M. Lazer, and D. Rubenstein. An Integrated IP/optical approach for efficient access router failure recovery. In Optical Fiber Communication Conference, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Y. Wang, E. Keller, B. Biskeborn, J. van der Merwe, and J. Rexford. Virtual routers on the move: live router migration as a network-management primitive. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, Seattle, WA, USA, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. D. Zhou, B. Fan, H. Lim, M. Kaminsky, and D. G. Andersen. Scalable, High Performance Ethernet Forwarding with CuckooSwitch. In Proceedings of ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, CoNEXT '13, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. EdgePlex: decomposing the provider edge for flexibilty and reliability

              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
                SOSR '15: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Software Defined Networking Research
                June 2015
                226 pages
                ISBN:9781450334518
                DOI:10.1145/2774993

                Copyright © 2015 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 ACM 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: 17 June 2015

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • short-paper

                Acceptance Rates

                SOSR '15 Paper Acceptance Rate7of43submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate7of43submissions,16%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader