Abstract
Software-defined networking (SDN) separates the network policy specification from its configuration and gives applications control over the forwarding rules that route traffic. On large networks that host several applications, the number of rules that network switches must handle can easily exceed tens of thousands. Most switches cannot handle rules of this volume because the complex rule matching in SDN (e.g., wildcards, diverse match fields) requires switches to store rules on TCAM, which is expensive and limited in size.
We perform a measurement study using two real-world network traffic traces to understand the effectiveness and side-effects of manual and automatic rule compression techniques. Our results show that not using any rule management mechanism is likely to result in a rule set that does not fit on current OpenFlow switches. Using rule expiration timeouts reduces the configuration footprint on a switch without affecting rule semantics but at the expense of up to 40 % increase in control channel overhead. Other manual (e.g., wildcards, limiting match fields) or automatic (e.g., combining similar rules) mechanisms introduce negligible overhead but change the original configuration and may misdirect less than 1 % of the flows. Our work uncovers trade-offs critical to both operators and programmers writing network policies that must satisfy both infrastructure and application constraints.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
NEC OpenFlow switches. http://www.openflow.org/wp/switch-NEC/
Pronto OpenFlow switches. http://www.openflow.org/wp/switch-Pronto/
Appelman, M., Boer, M.D.: Performance analysis of OpenFlow hardware. Technical report, University of Amsterdam (2012)
Benson, T., Akella, A., Maltz, D.: Network traffic characteristics of data centers in the wild. In: IMC (2010)
Curtis, A.R., Mogul, J.C., Tourrilhes, J., Yalag, P., Sharma, P., Banerjee, S.: Devoflow: scaling flow management for high-performance networks. In: SIGCOMM (2011)
Dong, Q., Banerjee, S., Wang, J., Agrawal, D., Shukla, A.: Packet classifiers in ternary CAMs can be smaller. In: ACM Sigmetrics (2006)
Foster, N., Harrison, R., Freedman, M.J., Monsanto, C., Rexford, J., Story, A., Walker, D.: Frenetic: a netowrk programming language. In: ACM IFIP (2011)
Freguson, A.D., Guha, A., Liang, C., Fonseca, R., Krishnamurthi, S., Networking, P.: An API for application control in SDNs. In: SIGCOMM (2013)
Guttman, A.: R-trees: a dynamic index structure for spatial searching. In: SIGMOD (1984)
HP 3800. http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/networking/products/switches/HP_3800_Switch_Series/index.aspx
IBM OpenFlow switches. http://www.openflow.org/wp/ibm-switch/
Kandula, S., Sengupta, S., Greenberg, A., Patel, P., Chaiken, R.: The nature of datacenter traffic: measurement and analysis. In: IMC (2009)
Katta, N., Alipourfad, O., Rexford, J., Walker, D.: Infinite CacheFlow in software-defined networks. In: HotSDN (2014)
Kogan, K., Nikolenko, S., Culhane, W., Eugster, P., Ruan, E.: Towards efficient implementation of packet classifiers in SDN/OpenFlow. In: HotSDN (2013)
Liu, H.: Routing table compaction in ternary CAM. IEEE Micro 22(1), 55–64 (2002)
McKeown, N., Anderson, T., Balakrishnan, H., Parulkar, G., Peterson, L., Rexford, J., Shenker, S., Turner, J.: OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM CCR 38, 69–74 (2008)
Meiners, C.R., Liu, A.X., Torng, E., Razor, T.: A systematic approach towards minimizing packet classifiers in TCAMs. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 18(2), 490–500 (2010)
Monsanto, C., Foster, N., Harrison, R., Walker, D.: A compiler and run-time system for network programs. In: ACM POPL (2012)
Monsanto, C., Reich, J., Foster, N., Rexford, J., Walker, D.: Composing software-defined networks. In: NSDI (2013)
Moshref, M., Yu, M., Sharma, A., Govindan, R.: Scalable rule management for data centers. In: NSDI (2013)
Openflow multipath proposal. http://www.openflow.org/wk/index.php/Multipath_Proposal
Openflow switch specification, 1.0.0. http://www.openflow.org/documents/openflow-spec-v1.0.0.pdf
Ravikumar, V.C., Mahapatra, R.N.: TCAM architecture for IP lookup using prefix properties. IEEE Micro 24(2), 60–69 (2004)
Rotsos, C., Sarrar, N., Uhlig, S., Sherwood, R., Moore, A.W.: OFLOPS: an open framework for OpenFlow switch evaluation. In: Taft, N., Ricciato, F. (eds.) PAM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7192, pp. 85–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Sarrar, N., Wuttke, R., Schmid, S., Bienkowski, M., Uhlig, S.: Leveraging locality for FIB aggregation. In: IEEE Globecom (2014)
Wang, R., Butnariu, D., Rexford, J.: OpenFlow-based server load balancing gone wild. In: Hot-ICE (2011)
Yu, M., Rexford, J., Freedman, M.J., Wang, J.: Scalable flow-based networking with DIFANE. In: ACM SIGCOMM (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Yu, C., Lumezanu, C., Madhyastha, H.V., Jiang, G. (2016). Characterizing Rule Compression Mechanisms in Software-Defined Networks. In: Karagiannis, T., Dimitropoulos, X. (eds) Passive and Active Measurement. PAM 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9631. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30505-9_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30505-9_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30504-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30505-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)