PPJ-02

PPJ-02 SDN History & Origins
http://eueung.github.io/EL5244/
Software Defined Networking

Transcript

1. PPJ #2 Virtualization & Software Defined Networking http://eueung.github.io/EL5244/ Dr.-Ing. Eueung Mulyana | 2015H2
2. This material is mainly a derivative and remix work. Most of the texts and illustrations are taken from the talks/lectures given by the referenced networking professors/gurus/ninjas (Credits at the end of the Slide).
3. SDN History & Origins
4. Overview 2004 2008 2011 2013 Research on new management paradigms RCP, 4D [Princeton, CMU,….] SANE, Ethane [Stanford/Berkeley] Software-Defined Networking (SDN) NOX Network Operating System [Nicira] OpenFlow switch interface [Stanford/Nicira] Open Networking Foundation ONF (~69 members) Board: Google, Yahoo, Verizon, DT, Microsoft, Facebook, NTT Members: Cisco, Juniper, HP, Dell, Broadcom, IBM,….. Open Networking Summit ONS 2013 1600 attendees, Google: SDN used for their WAN Commercialized, in production use (few places)
5. SDN Origins • AT&T’s Network Control Points: separation of control plane and data plane in circuit switched networks (dates back to 1980s) • Active Networks (1990s)
6. SDN Origins • Research on new management paradigms – [Princeton, CMU,….] Routing control platform (RCP) (2004) – [Princeton, CMU,….] A clean slate 4D approach to network control and management (4D) (2005) – [Stanford/Berkeley] SANE, Ethane – Industrial efforts with similar flavor (not published)
7. SDN Origins • Software-Defined Networking – SDN (2008) – NOX Network Operating System [Nicira] – OpenFlow switch interface [Stanford/Nicira]
8. 1990s Active Networking
9. Active Networking • Use pulls • Remarkably similar to those of SDN! • It’s too slow/hard to develop and deploy new services on the network (network ossification) • Third-party interest in value-added, fine-grain control to dynamically meet the needs of particular applications/network conditions • Researcher’s desire to experiment at scale • Unified control over middleboxes (firewalls, proxies, transcoders)
10. Active Networking – Contributions • Programmability in the network to lower barrier to innovation • Demux to software programs on packet headers • Unified architecture for middlebox orchestration • Pioneered the notion of programmable networks • AN focused more on data plane programmability • Isolation of experimental traffic from normal traffic • NodeOS, Execution Environment (EE), Active Application (AA) • Direct packets to EE: fast pattern matching on headers • Early design documents hint at it • But never fully realized
11. Active Networking Why not adopted? • Lack of compelling problem • Lack of clear path to deployment No “Killer” application • Caching, content distribution, application-specific QoS, information fusion,…, but not enough
12. 2004 – Focus : Management
13. Separating Control and Data Planes • Circa. 2001 to 2007 • Conventional routers/switches embody a tight integration between the control and data planes – Debugging configuration problems is hard – Predicting/controlling routing behavior is hard • Why not separate control and data planes?
14. Separating Control and Data Planes • Technology push • Open interface between the control/data planes • Logically-centralize control of the network – The Internet grows rapidly – Packet forwarding implemented in hardware – Separate from software-based control plane – Servers have more memory and processing power than control- plane processors in a router – ForCES (Forwarding and Control Element Separation) – Routing Control Platform (RCP), 4D, Ethane
15. Separating Control and Data Planes Compared to Active Networking: • Focused on pressing problems in network management – By and for network administrators – Programmability in the control plane (rather than data plane) – Network-wide visibility and control (rather than device-level configuration)
16. Contributions Logically centralized control using an open interface to the data plane • IETF (ForCES) defined an open, standard interface to install forwarding-table entries • RCP used existing control plane protocol (BGP) to install forwarding-table entries Distributed state management • A logically centralized controller must be replicated to cope with controller failure, but replication introduces inconsistent state across replicas
17. Credit • Scott Shenker, The Future of Networking and the Past of Protocols • Nick McKeown, Stanford University, Many Talks/Articles • Jennifer Rexford, COS 597E, Princeton University • Mike Freedman, COS 461, Princeton University • Nick Feamster, https://www.coursera.org/course/sdn • Li Erran Li, COMS 6998-10, Univ. of Columbia • Marco Cello, SDN Talk @ CNR, Univ. Genova • Guido Appenzeller, Network Virtualization in Multi- tenant Datacenters, VMware