skip to main content
10.1145/3050220.3050224acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Decentralized Consistent Updates in SDN

Published:03 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We present ez-Segway, a decentralized mechanism to consistently and quickly update the network state while preventing forwarding anomalies (loops and black-holes) and avoiding link congestion. In our design, the centralized SDN controller only pre-computes information needed by the switches during the update execution. This information is distributed to the switches, which use partial knowledge and direct message passing to efficiently realize the update. This separation of concerns has the key benefit of improving update performance as the communication and computation bottlenecks at the controller are removed. Our evaluations via network emulations and large-scale simulations demonstrate the efficiency of ez-Segway, which compared to a centralized approach, improves network update times by up to 45% and 57% at the median and the 99th percentile, respectively. A deployment of a system prototype in a real OpenFlow switch and an implementation in P4 demonstrate the feasibility and low overhead of implementing simple network update functionality within switches.

References

  1. P. Bosshart, D. Daly, G. Gibb, et al. P4: Programming Protocol-Independent Packet Processors. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 44(3), July 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Brandt, K.-T. Förster, and R. Wattenhofer. On Consistent Migration of Flows in SDNs. In INFOCOM, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. M. Canini, P. Kuznetsov, D. Levin, and S. Schmid. A Distributed and Robust SDN Control Plane for Transactional Network Updates. In INFOCOM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Centec Networks. GoldenGate 580 Series. http://bit.ly/2nbtHPA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. H. T. Dang, M. Canini, F. Pedone, and R. Soulé. Paxos Made Switch-y. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 46(2), Apr 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Foerster, S. Schmid, and S. Vissicchio. Survey of Consistent Network Updates. CoRR, abs/1609.02305, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Gerola, F. Lucrezia, M. Santuari, E. Salvadori, P. L. Ventre, S. Salsano, and M. Campanella. ICONA: a Peer-to-Peer Approach for Software Defined Wide Area Networks using ONOS. In EWSDN, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. He, M. Suchara, M. Bresler, J. Rexford, and M. Chiang. Rethinking Internet Traffic Management: From Multiple Decompositions to a Practical Protocol. In CoNEXT, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. K. He, J. Khalid, A. Gember-Jacobson, S. Das, C. Prakash, A. Akella, L. E. Li, and M. Thottan. Measuring Control Plane Latency in SDN-Enabled Switches. In SOSR, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. B. Heller, N. Handigol, V. Jeyakumar, B. Lantz, and N. McKeown. Reproducible Network Experiments using Container Based Emulation. In CoNEXT, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C.-Y. Hong, S. Kandula, R. Mahajan, M. Zhang, V. Gill, M. Nanduri, and R. Wattenhofer. Achieving High Utilization with Software-Driven WAN. In SIGCOMM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Internet2. Internet2 Network Infrastructure Topology. http://bit.ly/2nbrh3k.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. Jain, A. Kumar, S. Mandal, et al. B4: Experience with a Globally-Deployed Software Defined WAN. In SIGCOMM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. X. Jin, H. H. Liu, R. Gandhi, S. Kandula, R. Mahajan, M. Zhang, J. Rexford, and R. Wattenhofer. Dynamic Scheduling of Network Updates. In SIGCOMM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Kang, M. Ghobadi, J. Reumann, A. Shraer, and J. Rexford. Efficient Traffic Splitting on Commodity Switches. In CoNEXT, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. N. P. Katta, J. Rexford, and D. Walker. Incremental Consistent Updates. In HotSDN, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. D. Levin, M. Canini, S. Schmid, F. Schaffert, and A. Feldmann. Panopticon: Reaping the Benefits of Incremental SDN Deployment in Enterprise Networks. In USENIX ATC, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. H. H. Liu, X. Wu, M. Zhang, L. Yuan, R. Wattenhofer, and D. Maltz. zUpdate: Updating Data Center Networks with Zero Loss. In SIGCOMM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Ludwig, J. Marcinkowski, and S. Schmid. Scheduling Loop-free Network Updates: It's Good to Relax! In PODC, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Mahajan, N. T. Spring, D. Wetherall, and T. E. Anderson. Inferring Link Weights using End-to-End Measurements. In IMW, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. Mahajan and R. Wattenhofer. On Consistent Updates in Software Defined Networks. In HotNets, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. McClurg, H. Hojjat, P. Černý, and N. Foster. Efficient Synthesis of Network Updates. In PLDI, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Mizrahi and Y. Moses. Software Defined Networks: It's About Time. In INFOCOM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. Mizrahi, O. Rottenstreich, and Y. Moses. TimeFlip: Scheduling Network Updates with Timestamp-based TCAM Ranges. In INFOCOM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. T. D. Nguyen, M. Chiesa, and M. Canini. Towards Decentralized Fast Consistent Updates. In ANRW, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. D. Nguyen, M. Chiesa, and M. Canini. Decentralized Consistent Network Updates in SDN with ez-Segway. CoRR, abs/1703.02149, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. P. Perešíni, M. Kuźniar, M. Canini, and D. Kostić. ESPRES: Transparent SDN Update Scheduling. In HotSDN, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Reitblatt, N. Foster, J. Rexford, C. Schlesinger, and D. Walker. Abstractions for Network Update. In SIGCOMM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. RFC 3209. RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Roughan. Simplifying the Synthesis of Internet Traffic Matrices. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 35(5), Oct. 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ryu SDN Framework. http://osrg.github.io/ryu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. Vissicchio and L. Cittadini. FLIP the (Flow) Table: Fast LIghtweight Policy-preserving SDN Updates. In INFOCOM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. S. Vissicchio, O. Tilmans, L. Vanbever, and J. Rexford. Central Control Over Distributed Routing. In SIGCOMM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. W. Wang, W. He, J. Su, and Y. Chen. Cupid: Congestion-free Consistent Data Plane Update In Software Defined Networks. In INFOCOM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

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 '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research
    April 2017
    211 pages
    ISBN:9781450349475
    DOI:10.1145/3050220

    Copyright © 2017 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: 3 April 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate7of43submissions,16%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader