1 / 16

CABO: Concurrent Architectures are Better Than One

CABO: Concurrent Architectures are Better Than One. Nick Feamster (Georgia Tech) Jennifer Rexford (Princeton) Lixin Gao (U. Massachusetts). Virtualization as a Building Block for Networks. Multiple protocols, networks, or architectures in parallel

wray
Download Presentation

CABO: Concurrent Architectures are Better Than One

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. CABO: Concurrent Architectures are Better Than One Nick Feamster(Georgia Tech) Jennifer Rexford (Princeton) Lixin Gao (U. Massachusetts)

  2. Virtualization as a Building Block for Networks • Multiple protocols, networks, or architectures in parallel • Multiple logical routers on a single platform • Resource isolation in CPU, forwarding table, bandwidth • Programmability for custom protocols and mechanisms

  3. Some Ongoing Projects • Path Splicing(Georgia Tech) • Run multiple instances of routing protocol • Path bits indicate which instance to use at each hop • Exponential diversity gain, modest complexity • VROOM: Virtual Routers on the Move(Princeton) • Support overlay functions in routers • Efficient forwarding and scalable monitoring • HORN: Hybrid Routing for Overlay Networks(UMass Amherst) • Different nodes see different detailed subgraph • Availability of link state with good scalability

  4. t Path Splicing Compute multiple forwarding trees per destination.Allow packets to switch slices midstream. • Step 1: Run multiple instances of the routing protocol, each with slightly perturbed versions of the configuration • Step 2: Allow traffic to switch between instances at any node in the protocol s

  5. Reliability Close to Best Possible Average stretch is only 1.3 Sprint topology,degree-based perturbations

  6. VROOM: Virtual Routers on the Move • All logical configurations/states remain the same before/after the migration • IP addresses and routing protocol configurations remain the same • Routing-protocol adjacencies stay up • No protocol (BGP/IGP) reconvergence • Network topology stays intact • Adjacent routers won’t know router has moved • Virtually no disruption to traffic • Traffic downtime can be eliminated

  7. VROOM Result Slide?

  8. HORN:Hybrid rOuting for oveRlay Networks A-B-C-H C-H E-G-H D-G-H A knows a partial topology (adjacent sub-graph) via link state protocol, and learns routes from the border nodes of the sub-graph.

  9. Scalability vs. Convergence • Link state routing • Not scalable • A virtual network could be as large as the Internet • Distance vector routing • Convergence delay • Scales better • Main idea: a tunable routing protocol • Trade scalability for better availability • Each slice runs a fixed protocol with tunable parameter

  10. VINI/Trellis: Deployment Platform • Lightweight containers running on top of a single OS • Each virtual host sees a set of virtual ethernet links • Packet forwarding, traffic shaping remain outside of containers

  11. Trellis: Speed and Scalability Can support a large number of virtual containers Packet forwarding rates close to those of raw kernel

  12. CABO as a New Architecture • Virtualization • Multiple logical routers on shared hardware • Resource isolation in CPU, FIBs, and bandwidth • Programmability • General-purpose CPUs for control and manipulation • Network processors and FPGAs for fast forwarding • Economic refactoring • Infrastructure provider: manage routers and links • Service provider: offer end-to-end services

  13. Deciding Not to Decide • Flexibility has been key to the Internet’s success • Many different applications and services • Beyond anything the initial designers ever envisioned • Today this flexibility is limited to the end systems • Not surprisingly, this is where we have seen innovation • And, the “inside” is quite difficult to change • Witness the fate of IPv6, QoS, multicast, secure routing • Even if we could start over… • Maybe the design problem is over-constrained • Too many goals, some conflicting ?

  14. It’s Hard to be a Routing Protocol • Many design goals • Global reachability • Fast convergence • Efficient use of resources • Low protocol overhead • Secure control plane • Flexible routing policies • <your wish list here> • Perhaps we cannot satisfy all goals

  15. Convergence vs. Scalability

More Related