skip to main content
10.1145/3281411.3281432acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Artifacts Available

P-Rex: fast verification of MPLS networks with multiple link failures

Published:04 December 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Future communication networks are expected to be highly automated, disburdening human operators of their most complex tasks. However, while first powerful and automated network analysis tools are emerging, existing tools provide only limited (and inefficient) support of reasoning about failure scenarios. We present P-Rex, a fast what-if analysis tool, that allows us to test important reachability and policy-compliance properties even under an arbitrary number of failures, in polynomial-time, i.e., without enumerating all failure scenarios (the usual approach today, if supported at all). P-Rex targets networks based on Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and its Segment Routing (SR) extension and comes with an expressive query language based on regular expressions. It takes into account the actual router tables, and is hence well-suited for debugging. We also report on an industrial case study and demonstrate that P-Rex supports rich queries, performing what-if analyses in less than 70 minutes in most cases, in a 24-router network with over 100,000 MPLS forwarding rules.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p217-jensen.mp4

mp4

351.9 MB

References

  1. Carolyn Jane Anderson, Nate Foster, Arjun Guha, Jean-Baptiste Jeannin, Dexter Kozen, Cole Schlesinger, and David Walker. 2014. NetKAT: Semantic Foundations for Networks. SIGPLAN Not. 49, 1 (2014), 113--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alia K Atlas and Alex Zinin. 2008. Basic specification for IP fast-reroute: loop-free alternates. IETF RFC 5286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ryan Beckett, Aarti Gupta, Ratul Mahajan, and David Walker. 2017. A General Approach to Network Configuration Verification. In Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication ((SIGCOMM)'17). ACM, 155--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ryan Beckett, Aarti Gupta, Ratul Mahajan, and David Walker. 2017. A General Approach to Network Configuration Verification. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM. ACM, 155--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ryan Beckett, Ratul Mahajan, Todd Millstein, Jitendra Padhye, and David Walker. 2016. Don't Mind the Gap: Bridging Network-Wide Objectives and Device-Level Configurations. In Proc. ACM SIGCOMM. ACM, 328--341. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J.A. Brzozowski. 1962. Canonical regular expressions and minimal state graphs for definite events. Mathematical Theory of Automata 12 (1962), 529--561.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. J.R. Büchi. 1964. Regular canonical systems. Arch. Math. Logik u. Grundlagenforschung 6 (1964), 91--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ahmed El-Hassany, Petar Tsankov, Laurent Vanbever, and Martin Vechev. 2017. Network-wide configuration synthesis. In Proc. International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV). Springer, 261--281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ahmed El-Hassany, Petar Tsankov, Laurent Vanbever, and Martin Vechev. 2018. NetComplete: Practical Network-Wide Configuration Synthesis with Autocompletion. In Proc. 15th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX Association, 579--594.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Theodore Elhourani, Abishek Gopalan, and Srinivasan Ramasubramanian. 2014. IP fast rerouting for multi-link failures. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM. ACM, 2148--2156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. J. Esparza, D. Hansel, P. Rossmanith, and S. Schwoon. 2000. Efficient Algorithms for Model Checking Pushdown Systems. In Proc. 12th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV) (LNCS), Vol. 1855. Springer, 232--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Seyed K Fayaz, Tushar Sharma, Ari Fogel, Ratul Mahajan, Todd Millstein, Vyas Sekar, and George Varghese. 2016. Efficient Network Reachability Analysis using a Succinct Control Plane Representation. In Proc. 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI). USENIX Association, 217--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nate Foster, Dexter Kozen, Matthew Milano, Alexandra Silva, and Laure Thompson. 2015. A coalgebraic decision procedure for NetKAT. In ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Vol. 50 (1). ACM, 343--355. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aaron Gember-Jacobson, Raajay Viswanathan, Aditya Akella, and Ratul Mahajan. 2016. Fast Control Plane Analysis Using an Abstract Representation. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCOMM Conference ((SIGCOMM) '16). ACM, 300--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Juniper. 2018. Show Route Forwarding-Table. Technical Documentation https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/command-summary/show-route-forwarding-table.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David M Kahn. 2017. Undecidable Problems for Probabilistic Network Programming. In MFCS'17, Vol. 83. LIPIcs-Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics, Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, and Nick McKeown. 2012. Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks. In Proc. 9th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX Association, 113--126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ahmed Khurshid, Xuan Zou, Wenxuan Zhou, Matthew Caesar, and P Brighten Godfrey. 2013. Veriflow: Verifying network-wide invariants in real time. In Proc. 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX Association, 15--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kim G. Larsen, Stefan Schmid, and Bingtian Xue. 2016. WNetKAT: A Weighted SDN Programming and Verification Language. In Proc. 20th International Conference on Principles of Distributed Systems (OPODIS). Schloss Dagstuhl. Leibniz-Zentrum fÃijr Informatik, 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Haohui Mai, Ahmed Khurshid, Rachit Agarwal, Matthew Caesar, P Godfrey, and Samuel Talmadge King. 2011. Debugging the data plane with anteater. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 41 (4). ACM, 290--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Michael Menth, Michael Duelli, Ruediger Martin, and Jens Milbrandt. 2009. Resilience analysis of packet-witched communication networks. IEEE/ACM transactions on Networking (ToN) 17, 6 (2009), 1950--1963. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. RFC 8001. 2017. RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8001/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Stefan Schmid and Jiří Srba. 2018. Polynomial-Time What-If Analysis for Prefix-Manipulating MPLS Networks. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM'18). IEEE, 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Stefan Schwoon. 2002. Model-Checking Pushdown Systems. Ph.D. Thesis. Technische Universität München. http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/Publis/PAPERS/PDF/schwoon-phd02.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ken Thompson. 1968. Programming techniques: Regular expression search algorithm. Commun. ACM 11, 6 (1968), 419--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Anduo Wang, Limin Jia, Wenchao Zhou, Yiqing Ren, Boon Thau Loo, Jennifer Rexford, Vivek Nigam, Andre Scedrov, and Carolyn Talcott. 2012. FSR: Formal analysis and implementation toolkit for safe interdomain routing. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN) 20, 6 (2012), 1814--1827. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Dahai Xu, Yizhi Xiong, Chunming Qiao, and Guangzhi Li. 2004. Failure protection in layered networks with shared risk link groups. IEEE Network 18, 3 (2004), 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hongyi Zeng, Shidong Zhang, Fei Ye, Vimalkumar Jeyakumar, Mickey Ju, Junda Liu, Nick McKeown, and Amin Vahdat. 2014. Libra: Divide and conquer to verify forwarding tables in huge networks. In Proc. 11th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI). USENIX Association, 87--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. P-Rex: fast verification of MPLS networks with multiple link failures

      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
        CoNEXT '18: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies
        December 2018
        408 pages
        ISBN:9781450360807
        DOI:10.1145/3281411

        Copyright © 2018 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: 4 December 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate198of789submissions,25%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader