1 / 29

TCAM Razor: A Systematic Approach Towards Minimizing Packet Classifiers in TCAMs

TCAM Razor: A Systematic Approach Towards Minimizing Packet Classifiers in TCAMs. Authors: Chad R. Meiners, Alex X. Liu, Eric Torng Publisher: ICNP 2007 Present: Yu-Tso Chen Date: November, 6, 2007. Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering

Download Presentation

TCAM Razor: A Systematic Approach Towards Minimizing Packet Classifiers in TCAMs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. TCAM Razor: A Systematic Approach Towards Minimizing Packet Classifiers in TCAMs Authors: Chad R. Meiners, Alex X. Liu, Eric Torng Publisher: ICNP 2007 Present:Yu-Tso Chen Date:November, 6, 2007 Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan R.O.C.

  2. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Definitions and problem description • 3. Multi-dimensional TCAM Mnimization • 4. Experimental Result • 5. Conclusion

  3. Occam’s Razor • “Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.”

  4. Introduction • TCAMs have their own limitations with respect to packet classification • a) Range expansion – TCAM only store rules that are encoded in ternary format • Source & Destination port numbers are specified in Ranges 30 prefixs are needed to represent the single range [1, 65534] 30 X 30 =900 TCAM entries

  5. Encoding Considerations • Range expansions • Encoding ranges has a multiplicative effect • [1,14] => 0001, 001*, 01**, 10**, 110*, 1110 • [1,14] /\ [1,14] => 6 × 6 = 36 entries • 1 rule can lead to over 900 TCAM entries. • Each port interval can leads to 30 rules • w-bit interval => 2w-2 maximum entries • Prefix Encoding • Standard practice to encode entries in prefix format • Each field is in prefix format • Minimizing arbitrary ternary lists is NP-hard

  6. TCAM Challenges • b) Low capacity • – Maximum of 18 Mb • – 2 Mb and 1Mb modules are the most popular • – Each entry has 144 bits • c) Larger capacity consumes more energy • – More power, more heat • – Cooling is a concern • d) Larger capacity consumes more board space • e) Larger capacity is more expensive • – 1Mb module is ~ $250

  7. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Definitions and problem description • 3. Matching of Individual Patterns • 4. Selective Grouping of Multiple Patterns • 5. Evaluation Result • 6. Conclusion

  8. Definitions and problem description • Reducing the number of rules in a TCAM directly 900 entries 6 entries

  9. Our solution:TCAM Razor • Above problem is NP-hard, we using three techniques • Decision diagrams • Dynamic programming • Redundancy removal

  10. Our solution:TCAM Razor • Our solution consists of four basic step • 1)Convert a given packet classifier to a reduced decision diagram • 2)Every non-terminal node in the decision diagram minimize the number of prefixs associated with its outgoing edges using dynamic programming • 3)Generate rules from the decision diagram • 4)Remove redundant rules

  11. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Definitions and problem description • 3. Multi-dimensional TCAM Mnimization • 4. Experimental Result • 5. Conclusion

  12. Example one-dimensional TCAM minimization problem

  13. From single to Multiple dimension • First step of TCAM Razor is to convert rules into an FDD (Firewall Decision Diagram)

  14. Multi-dimensional TCAMMinimization • Work from the bottom up V2 V3 V1

  15. MINIMUM PACKET CLASSIFIER • 10** (with decision accept and cost 1) • 0 *** (with decision discard and cost 1) • 11** (with decision discard and cost 1)

  16. MINIMUM PACKET CLASSIFIER • 1000 (with decision V2and cost 1) • 101* (with decision V2 and cost 1) • 0 *** (with decision V3 and cost 1) • 1001 (with decision V3 and cost 1) • 11** (with decision V3 and cost 1) V1

  17. Solution Composition V2 V3 V1 Redundant

  18. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Definitions and problem description • 3. Multi-dimensional TCAM Mnimization • 4. Experimental Result • 5. Conclusion

  19. Experimental Data • Real-life Packet Classifiers • 42 actual classifiers • 17 structurally distinct classifiers • Synthetic Packet Classifiers • Difficult to get real-life packet classifiers • 18 sets of 100 uniformly sized classifiers • Randomly generated • Generated to look like real classifiers

  20. Experimental Metrics • Direct Rule Expansion Direct(f) • Number of rules produced by encoding classifier f into prefix format • Each rule is the expansion of the minimal prefix representations of each interval • Algorithm application A(f) • Number of prefix rules produced applying algorithm A on classifier f • TCAM Razor • Redundancy Removal

  21. Experimental Metrics • For a set of classifiers S

  22. Experimental Factors • Field Ordering • FDD field order results in a substantial difference • 5! = 120 permutations • Permutation 49 is the best with an average compression of 18.2% • (Source IP, Protocol type, Dest. IP, Dest. Port, Source Port) • TCAM Razor(B) – TCAM Razor using the best of the permutations for f

  23. Compression Ratios • TCAM Razor: 18.2% average compression ratio • Redundancy Removal: 41.8%

  24. Compression Ratios • 13 of 17 classifiers have less than 1%

  25. Expansion Ratio

  26. Synthetic Packet Classifiers • Average compression ratio – .046 • Total compression ratio – .016

  27. Synthetic Packet Classifiers • Average expansion ratio – 8.737 • Total expansionratio – 3.082

  28. Outline • 1. Introduction • 2. Definitions and problem description • 3. Multi-dimensional TCAM Mnimization • 4. Experimental Result • 5. Conclusion

  29. Concluding Remarks • TCAM Razor usually produces significant space savings • 82% reduction in TCAM entries on average • No hardware modification • Can be used to improve existing hardware

More Related