skip to main content
research-article

Latte: Improving the Latency of Transiently Consistent Network Update Schedules

Published:05 March 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Emerging software-defined and programmable networking technologies enable more adaptive communication infrastructures. However, leveraging these flexibilities and operating networks more adaptively is challenging, as the underlying infrastructure remains a complex distributed system that is a subject to delays, and as consistency properties need to be preserved transiently, even during network reconfiguration. Motivated by these challenges, we propose Latte, an automated approach to minimize the latency of network update schedules by avoiding unnecessary waiting times and exploiting concurrency, while at the same time provably ensuring a wide range of fundamental consistency properties like waypoint enforcement. To enable automated reasoning about the performance and consistency of software-defined networks during an update, we introduce the model of timed-arc colored Petri nets: an extension of Petri nets which allows us to account for time aspects in asynchronous networks, including characteristic timing behaviors, modeled as timed and colored tokens. This novel formalism may be of independent interest. Latte relies on an efficient translation of specific network update problems into timed-arc colored Petri nets. We show that the constructed nets can be analyzed efficiently via their unfolding into existing timed-arc Petri nets. We integrate Latte into the state-of-the-art model checking tool TAPAAL, and find that in many cases, we are able to reduce the latency of network updates by 90% or more.

References

  1. Pica8 p3297 data sheet, 2014. https://www.pica8.com/wp-content/uploads/ pica8-datasheet-48x1gbe-p3297.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Trisul network analytics, 2017. https: //www.trisul.org/blog/analysing-ssh/post.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dev IO. https://dev.to/onmyway133/ how-to-calculate-packet-size-in-voip--54ac, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Saeed Akhoondian Amiri, Szymon Dudycz, Stefan Schmid, and Sebastian Wiederrecht. Congestion-free rerouting of flows on dags. In 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), volume 107, pages 143:1--143:13. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Wael Hosny Fouad Aly and Yehia Kotb. Towards SDN fault tolerance using Petri-nets. In 28th International Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ITNAC), pages 1--3. IEEE, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Andersen, H.G. Larsen, J. Srba, M.G. Sørensen, and J.H. Taankvist. Verification of liveness properties on closed timed-arc Petri nets. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Doctoral Workshop on Mathematical and Engineering Methods in Computer Science (MEMICS'12), volume 7721 of LNCS, pages 69--81. Springer-Verlag, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Simon Bauer, Daniel Raumer, Paul Emmerich, and Georg Carle. Behind the scenes: what device benchmarks can tell us. In Proceedings of the Applied Networking Research Workshop, pages 58--65. ACM, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Sebastian Brandt, Klaus-Tycho F¨orster, and Roger Wattenhofer. On consistent migration of flows in SDNs. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, pages 1--9. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Marco Canini, Petr Kuznetsov, Dan Levin, and Stefan Schmid. A distributed and robust SDN control plane for transactional network updates. In 2015 IEEE conference on computer communications (INFOCOM), pages 190--198. IEEE, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Richard Chirgwin. Google routing blunder sent japan's internet dark on friday. 2017. https: //www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/27/google_ routing_blunder_sent_japans_internet_dark/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David Clark, Jennifer Rexford, and Amin Vahdat. A purpose-built global network: Google's move to SDN. Communications of the ACM, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. David, L. Jacobsen, M. Jacobsen, K.Y. Jørgensen, M.H. Møller, and J. Srba. TAPAAL 2.0: Integrated development environment for timed-arc Petri nets. In Proc. 18th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), volume 7214 of LNCS, pages 492--497. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. David, L. Jacobsen, M. Jacobsen, and J. Srba. A forward reachability algorithm for bounded timed-arc Petri nets. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Systems Software Verification (SSV'12), volume 102 of EPTCS, pages 125--140. Open Publishing Association, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Szymon Dudycz, Arne Ludwig, and Stefan Schmid. Can't touch this: Consistent network updates for multiple policies. In 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pages 133--143. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Nick Feamster and Jennifer Rexford. Why (and how) networks should run themselves. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11583, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bernd Finkbeiner, Manuel Gieseking, Jesko Hecking-Harbusch, and Ernst-R¨udiger Olderog. Model checking data flows in concurrent network updates (full version). arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11061, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Foerster, S. Schmid, and S. Vissicchio. Survey of consistent software-defined network updates. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 21(2):1435--1461, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Klaus-Tycho Foerster. On the consistent migration of unsplittable flows: Upper and lower complexity bounds. In 2017 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA), pages 1--4. IEEE, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Klaus-Tycho Foerster, Thomas Luedi, Jochen Seidel, Performance Evaluation Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, December 2020 25 and Roger Wattenhofer. Local checkability, no strings attached:(a) cyclicity, reachability, loop free updates in SDNs. Theoretical Computer Science, 709:48--63, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Jesper Stenbjerg Jensen, Troels Beck Krogh, Jonas Sand Madsen, Stefan Schmid, Jiri Srba, and Marc Tom Thorgersen. P-Rex: Fast verification of MPLS networks with multiple link failures. In Proc. 14th ACM International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT), pages 217--227. ACM, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Xin Jin, Hongqiang Harry Liu, Rohan Gandhi, Srikanth Kandula, Ratul Mahajan, Ming Zhang, Jennifer Rexford, and Roger Wattenhofer. Dynamic scheduling of network updates. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, volume 44, pages 539--550. ACM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Peyman Kazemian, Michael Chang, Hongyi Zeng, George Varghese, Nick McKeown, and Scott Whyte. Real time network policy checking using header space analysis. In Presented as part of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'13), pages 99--111, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Simon Knight, Hung X Nguyen, Nickolas Falkner, Rhys Bowden, and Matthew Roughan. The internet topology zoo. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 29(9):1765--1775, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Hongqiang Harry Liu, Xin Wu, Ming Zhang, Lihua Yuan, Roger Wattenhofer, and David Maltz. zupdate: Updating data center networks with zero loss. In ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, volume 43, pages 411--422. ACM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Arne Ludwig, Szymon Dudycz, Matthias Rost, and Stefan Schmid. Transiently secure network updates. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 44(1):273--284, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Arne Ludwig, Jan Marcinkowski, and Stefan Schmid. Scheduling loop-free network updates: It's good to relax! In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pages 13--22. ACM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Arne Ludwig, Matthias Rost, Damien Foucard, and Stefan Schmid. Good network updates for bad packets: Waypoint enforcement beyond destination-based routing policies. In Proc. 13th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), page 15. ACM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratul Mahajan and Roger Wattenhofer. On consistent updates in software defined networks. In Proc. 12th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), page 20. ACM, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jedidiah McClurg, Hossein Hojjat, Pavol ?Cern'y, and Nate Foster. Efficient synthesis of network updates. In Acm Sigplan Notices, volume 50, pages 196--207. ACM, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Tal Mizrahi and Yoram Moses. Time4: Time for SDN. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 13(3):433--446, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Christopher Monsanto, Joshua Reich, Nate Foster, Jennifer Rexford, and David Walker. Composing software defined networks. In 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'13), pages 1--13, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Peter Pere´ni, Maciej Kuzniar, Marco Canini, and Dejan Kosti´c. ESPRES: Transparent SDN update scheduling. In Proceedings of the third workshop on Hot topics in software defined networking, pages 73--78. ACM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Carl Adam Petri. Kommunikation mit Automaten. PhD thesis, Universit¨at Hamburg, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Chander Ramchandani. Analysis of asynchronous concurrent systems by timed petri nets. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Mark Reitblatt, Nate Foster, Jennifer Rexford, Cole Schlesinger, and David Walker. Abstractions for network update. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 42(4):323--334, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Piotr Rygielski, Marian Seliuchenko, and Samuel Kounev. Modeling and prediction of software-defined networks performance using queueing petri nets. In Proc. 9th EAI International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques, pages 66--75, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sahel Sahhaf, Wouter Tavernier, Matthias Rost, Stefan Schmid, Didier Colle, Mario Pickavet, and Piet Demeester. Network service chaining with optimized network function embedding supporting service decompositions. Computer Networks, 93:492--505, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Rishi Sinha, Christos Papadopoulos, and John Heidemann. Internet packet size distributions: Some observations. Technical Report ISI-TR-2007--643, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 2007. Orignally released October 2005 as web page http://netweb.usc.edu/%7ersinha/pkt-sizes/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. W. M. P. van der Aalst. Interval timed coloured Petri nets and their analysis. In Application and Theory of Petri Nets (APTN'93), volume 691 of LNCS, pages 453--472. Springer, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Linyuan Yao, Ping Dong, Tao Zheng, Hongke Zhang, Xiaojiang Du, and Mohsen Guizani. Network security analyzing and modeling based on petri net and attack tree for SDN. In 2016 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), pages 1--5. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Jiaqi Zheng, Guihai Chen, Stefan Schmid, Haipeng Dai, and Jie Wu. Chronus: Consistent data plane updates in timed SDNs. In 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pages 319--327. IEEE, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Wenxuan Zhou, Dong Jin, Jason Croft, Matthew Caesar, and P Brighten Godfrey. Enforcing customizable consistency properties in software-defined networks. In Proc. 12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI'15), pages 73--85, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Wlodek M Zuberek. Timed Petri nets definitions, properties, and applications. Microelectronics Reliability, 31(4):627--644, 1991.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

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review
    ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review  Volume 48, Issue 3
    December 2020
    140 pages
    ISSN:0163-5999
    DOI:10.1145/3453953
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2021 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 5 March 2021

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader