Network Control Plane Synthesis and Verification

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Network Control Plane Synthesis and Verification NETWORK CONTROL PLANE SYNTHESIS AND VERIFICATION RYAN ANDREW BECKETT ADISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY RECOMMENDED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE ADVISER:DAVID WALKER SEPTEMBER 2018 © Copyright by Ryan Andrew Beckett, 2018. All rights reserved. Abstract Computer networks have become an integral part of modern infrastructure, and as the world con- tinues to become increasingly interconnected and more devices come online, the importance of networks will only continue to grow. A critical component of networks is a process called routing, whereby the network determines how to move data from point A to point B as changes occur dy- namically (e.g., when new devices connect or equipment fails). Routing is traditionally achieved through the manual configuration of one or more distributed protocols that exchange messages about available routes to different destinations. Manual configuration lets a network operator tune various low-level protocol parameters to accommodate the different economic-, performance-, and robustness-related objectives that they may have for the network. Unfortunately, the low-level na- ture of existing configuration primitives and the scale of modern networks makes it difficult for humans to predict the impact of configuration on all possible runtime behaviors of the network, often resulting in configuration bugs. This dissertation develops two complementary techniques for proactively finding and prevent- ing bugs in configurations. The first technique is verification. Given a collection of router config- urations and a high-level specification of what the network should do (e.g., certain devices should be reachable), verification aims to ensure that the configurations implement this high-level specifi- cation correctly for all possible network behaviors. To address this problem, we develop a formal model of network routing protocols and show how many common protocols can be translated to logic constraints that existing constraint solvers can solve to find (or prove the absence of) bugs. The second technique is synthesis. Given a high-level specification of what the network should do, synthesis aims to produce a collection of configurations that faithfully implement the specification for all possible dynamic network conditions. We develop a new high-level language for describing end-to-end network behavior and demonstrate an efficient synthesis algorithm that can generate correct configurations. Throughout the development of both techniques, we show the importance of “abstraction” in speeding up each technique by several orders of magnitude. iii Acknowledgements I want to start by thanking my advisor David Walker for all his teaching, patience, and guid- ance over the years. Dave has made an otherwise arduous journey a delight. It has also been a pleasure to work with many great co-authors over the years, including Jitu Padhye, Ratul Mahajan, Todd Millstein, Sharad Malik, Aarti Gupta, Jennifer Rexford, Michael Greenberg, Shuyuan Zhang, Kelvin Zou, and Ang Chen – all of whom have taught me a great deal through our interactions. The members of the PL group at Princeton have also been a great source of support whether it was getting feedback on ideas and presentations or just taking my mind off of things. I hope I have been an equal source of support in return. I am grateful for the advice and attention from my disserta- tion committee: Aarti Gupta, Ratul Mahajan, Jennifer Rexford, Nick Feamster, and David Walker. Their feedback and efforts have greatly improved the quality of this thesis. This dissertation would also not have been possible without my undergraduate advisor Paul Reynolds, who introduced me to programming languages and opened my eyes to the possibility that graduate school might be something I would enjoy pursuing. I would like to thank my family – my mother, father, and my brother Matthew – who have been nothing but supportive over the years (even when I call for help with silly problems). Finally, much of the work in this dissertation was supported by NSF grants 1111520, 1525936, and 1703493 as well as funding from Cisco, Facebook, and Google. iv Contents Abstract . iii Acknowledgements . iv List of Figures . xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Network Routing . .4 1.2 Network Configuration . .7 1.2.1 How Configuration Influences Routing . .7 1.2.2 The Cost of Misconfiguration . .8 1.3 Verification of Configurations . 10 1.4 Synthesis of Configurations . 12 1.5 Abstraction: Scaling Network Analysis . 13 1.6 Summary of Contributions . 14 1.7 Additional Comments . 15 2 Background 17 2.1 Data Plane . 17 2.1.1 Longest Prefix Matching (LPM) . 18 2.1.2 Access Control Lists (ACLs) . 18 2.2 Control Plane . 19 2.2.1 Static Routing . 20 v 2.2.2 Dynamic protocols . 21 2.2.3 iBGP . 25 2.2.4 Route Reflectors . 28 2.2.5 Route Redistribution . 28 2.2.6 Route Aggregation . 29 2.2.7 Multipath Routing . 29 3 Control Plane Verification 31 3.1 Related Work . 31 3.1.1 Analysis without formal semantic models. 32 3.1.2 Analysis with formal semantic models. 33 3.2 Overview of the approach . 36 3.3 Motivating Example . 38 3.4 Stable Routing Problem . 41 3.4.1 SRP Definition . 41 3.4.2 SRP Solution . 43 3.4.3 Modeling Common Routing Protocols . 44 3.5 Translation to SMT . 47 3.5.1 Overview . 47 3.5.2 Design Decisions and Limitations . 48 3.5.3 Encoding the Packet . 49 3.5.4 Encoding the Control Plane . 50 3.5.5 Encoding the Data Plane . 58 3.5.6 Encoding Properties . 58 3.6 Generalizing the Model . 59 3.6.1 Route redistribution . 59 3.6.2 Static route recursive lookup . 60 3.6.3 Aggregation . 60 vi 3.6.4 Multipath routing . 60 3.6.5 BGP community regexes . 61 3.6.6 iBGP . 61 3.6.7 Route reflectors . 62 3.6.8 Multi-exit discriminator (MED) . 62 3.7 Property Expressiveness . 63 3.7.1 Reachability and isolation . 63 3.7.2 Waypointing . 64 3.7.3 Bounded or equal path length . 64 3.7.4 Disjoint paths . 64 3.7.5 Forwarding loops . 64 3.7.6 Black holes . 65 3.7.7 Multipath consistency . 65 3.7.8 Neighbor or path preferences . 66 3.7.9 Load balancing . 67 3.7.10 Aggregation and leaking prefixes . 68 3.7.11 Local equivalence . 68 3.7.12 Full equivalence . 69 3.7.13 Stability and Uniqueness . 69 3.7.14 Wedgies . 70 3.7.15 Fault tolerance . 70 3.7.16 Fault-invariance testing . 70 3.8 Optimizations . 71 3.8.1 Hoisting . 71 3.8.2 Network Slicing . 73 3.9 Implementation . 74 3.10 Evaluation . 75 vii 3.10.1 Finding Errors in Real Configurations . 75 3.10.2 Verification Performance . 76 3.10.3 Optimization Effectiveness . 80 3.11 Summary . 80 4 Control Plane Verification with Abstraction 82 4.1 Related Work . 83 4.2 Overview . 84 4.3 Abstraction Definitions . 89 4.3.1 Effective Abstraction Conditions . 90 4.4 Control Plane Equivalence . 93 4.4.1 Loop-free protocols . 94 4.4.2 Static routing . 95 4.4.3 Forwarding path equivalence . 95 4.4.4 BGP with Loop Prevention . 96 4.4.5 Properties preserved . 100 4.4.6 Properties not preserved . ..
Recommended publications
  • Control Plane Overview Subnet 1.2 Subnet 1.2
    The Network Layer: Control Plane Overview Subnet 1.2 Subnet 1.2 R3 R2 R6 Interior Subnet 1.2 R5 Subnet 1.2 Subnet 1.2 R7 1. Routing Algorithms: Link-State, Distance Vector R8 R4 R1 Subnet 1.2 Dijkstra’s algorithm, Bellman-Ford Algorithm Exterior Subnet 1.2 Subnet 1.2 2. Routing Protocols: OSPF, BGP Raj Jain 3. SDN Control Plane Washington University in Saint Louis 4. ICMP Saint Louis, MO 63130 5. SNMP [email protected] Audio/Video recordings of this lecture are available on-line at: Note: This class lecture is based on Chapter 5 of the textbook (Kurose and Ross) and the figures provided by the authors. http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain 5-1 5-2 Network Layer Functions Overview Routing Algorithms T Forwarding: Deciding what to do with a packet using 1. Graph abstraction a routing table Data plane 2. Distance Vector vs. Link State T Routing: Making the routing table Control Plane 3. Dijkstra’s Algorithm 4. Bellman-Ford Algorithm Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain 5-3 5-4 Rooting or Routing Routeing or Routing T Rooting is what fans do at football games, what pigs T Routeing: British do for truffles under oak trees in the Vaucluse, and T Routing: American what nursery workers intent on propagation do to T Since Oxford English Dictionary is much heavier than cuttings from plants.
    [Show full text]
  • SIGOPS Annual Report 2012
    SIGOPS Annual Report 2012 Fiscal Year July 2012-June 2013 Submitted by Jeanna Matthews, SIGOPS Chair Overview SIGOPS is a vibrant community of people with interests in “operatinG systems” in the broadest sense, includinG topics such as distributed computing, storaGe systems, security, concurrency, middleware, mobility, virtualization, networkinG, cloud computinG, datacenter software, and Internet services. We sponsor a number of top conferences, provide travel Grants to students, present yearly awards, disseminate information to members electronically, and collaborate with other SIGs on important programs for computing professionals. Officers It was the second year for officers: Jeanna Matthews (Clarkson University) as Chair, GeorGe Candea (EPFL) as Vice Chair, Dilma da Silva (Qualcomm) as Treasurer and Muli Ben-Yehuda (Technion) as Information Director. As has been typical, elected officers agreed to continue for a second and final two- year term beginning July 2013. Shan Lu (University of Wisconsin) will replace Muli Ben-Yehuda as Information Director as of AuGust 2013. Awards We have an excitinG new award to announce – the SIGOPS Dennis M. Ritchie Doctoral Dissertation Award. SIGOPS has lonG been lackinG a doctoral dissertation award, such as those offered by SIGCOMM, Eurosys, SIGPLAN, and SIGMOD. This new award fills this Gap and also honors the contributions to computer science that Dennis Ritchie made durinG his life. With this award, ACM SIGOPS will encouraGe the creativity that Ritchie embodied and provide a reminder of Ritchie's leGacy and what a difference a person can make in the field of software systems research. The award is funded by AT&T Research and Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, companies that both have a strong connection to AT&T Bell Laboratories where Dennis Ritchie did his seminal work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Network Layer: Control Plane
    CHAPTER 5 The Network Layer: Control Plane In this chapter, we’ll complete our journey through the network layer by covering the control-plane component of the network layer—the network-wide logic that con- trols not only how a datagram is forwarded among routers along an end-to-end path from the source host to the destination host, but also how network-layer components and services are configured and managed. In Section 5.2, we’ll cover traditional routing algorithms for computing least cost paths in a graph; these algorithms are the basis for two widely deployed Internet routing protocols: OSPF and BGP, that we’ll cover in Sections 5.3 and 5.4, respectively. As we’ll see, OSPF is a routing protocol that operates within a single ISP’s network. BGP is a routing protocol that serves to interconnect all of the networks in the Internet; BGP is thus often referred to as the “glue” that holds the Internet together. Traditionally, control-plane routing protocols have been implemented together with data-plane forwarding functions, monolithi- cally, within a router. As we learned in the introduction to Chapter 4, software- defined networking (SDN) makes a clear separation between the data and control planes, implementing control-plane functions in a separate “controller” service that is distinct, and remote, from the forwarding components of the routers it controls. We’ll cover SDN controllers in Section 5.5. In Sections 5.6 and 5.7 we’ll cover some of the nuts and bolts of managing an IP network: ICMP (the Internet Control Message Protocol) and SNMP (the Simple Network Management Protocol).
    [Show full text]
  • IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support
    IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support The Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol provides short-duration detection of failures in the path between adjacent forwarding engines while maintaining low networking overheads. The BFD IS-IS Client Support feature enables Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) to use Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) support, which improves IS-IS convergence as BFD detection and failure times are faster than IS-IS convergence times in most network topologies. The IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support feature enables the network to identify whether a BFD session failure is genuine or is the result of a control plane failure due to a router restart. When planning a router restart, you should configure this feature on all neighboring routers. • Finding Feature Information, on page 1 • Prerequisites for IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support, on page 1 • Information About IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support, on page 2 • How to Configure IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support, on page 2 • Configuration Examples for IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support, on page 3 • Additional References, on page 4 • Feature Information for IS-IS Client for BFD C-Bit Support, on page 4 Finding Feature Information Your software release may not support all the features documented in this module. For the latest caveats and feature information, see Bug Search Tool and the release notes for your platform and software release. To find information about the features documented in this module, and to see a list of the releases in which each feature is supported, see the feature information table.
    [Show full text]
  • About Technews About SIG Newsletters
    PRINT AND ONLINE ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES About TechNews About SIG Newsletters TechNews is an email digest of computing and technology ACM’s 37 Special Interest Groups (SIGs) represent news gathered from leading sources; distributed Monday, the major disciplines of the dynamic computing fi eld. Wednesday, and Friday to a circulation of over 105,000 ACM’s SIGs are invested in advancing the skills of their subscribers. Its concise summaries are perfect for busy members, keeping them abreast of emerging trends and professionals who need and want to keep up with the driving innovation across a broad spectrum of computing latest industry developments. disciplines. TechNews is regularly cited as one of ACM’s most valued As a member benefit, many ACM SIGs provide its members benefits and is one of the best ways to communicate with with a print or online newsletter covering news and events ACM members. within the realm of their fields. Circulation SIGACCESS: ACM SIGACCESS Newsletter* SIGACT: SIGACT News Listserv 105,000 SIGAda: Ada Letters SIGAI: AI Matters* Online Advertising Opportunities SIGAPP: Applied Computing Review* Right-hand sidebar position SIGBED: SIGBED Review* Size Dimensions Rates SIGBio: ACM SIGBio Record* Top Banner 468 x 60 IMU $6500/Month* SIGCAS: Computers & Society Newsletter* Skyscraper 160 x 600 IMU $6000/Month* SIGCOMM: Computer Communication Review* Square Ad 160 x 160 IMU $2500/Month* SIGCSE: SIGCSE Bulletin* SIGDOC: Communication Design Quarterly* * 12 Transmissions SIGecom: ACM SIGecom Exchanges* Maximum File Size:
    [Show full text]
  • SIGPLAN FY '05 Annual Report
    SIGPLAN FY '05 Annual Report July 2004—June 2005 Submitted by Jack W. Davidson, SIGPLAN Chair This year ACM SIGPLAN has continued its active sponsorship of many conferences and workshops as well as its two newsletters. SIGPLAN's present financial situation is strong, and our fund balance grew in FY 2005 after three consec- utive years of losses. Our fund balance comfortably exceeds the required minimum. Our conferences overall incurred financial gains, including OOPSLA, our largest conference, which had incurred a significant financial loss for each of the three preceding years. We were more selective with funding worthwhile projects such as student travel, funding these at about one half the level of recent years. A good resource for monitoring our activities is our web page, found at http://www.acm.org/sigplan/. 1. Conferences We sponsored seven annual conferences last year, GPCE (with SIGSOFT), ICFP, LCTES (with SIGBED), OOP- SLA, PLDI, POPL (with SIGACT), and PPDP. We also sponsored PPoPP and ISMM, which are held approxi- mately biannually. Of these conferences, PLDI, POPL and PPoPP appear in the Citeseer top 15 of more than 1200 Computer Science publication venues, based on their citation rates. We sponsored numerous workshops, including AADEBUG, BUGS, CUFP, Erlang, FOOL, Haskell, IVME, MSP, PLAN-X, Scheme, TLDI, and PEPM. Financial results for our conferences were positive. Conference attendance has been holding steady, with a dramatic increase in student participation. Conferences continue to receive far more submissions than we can accept, and our major conferences continue to be extremely selective. We have separate steering committees for all of our conferences.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 ACM Awards Call for Nominations
    Turing Award The A. M. Turing Award is ACM's oldest and most prestigious award. It is presented annually to an individual or a group of individuals who have made lasting contributions of a technical nature to the computing community. The long-term influence of a candidate’s work is taken into consideration, but there should be a singular outstanding and trend-setting technical achievement that constitutes the claim of the award. The award is presented each June at the ACM Awards Banquet and is accompanied by a prize of $1,000,000 plus travel expenses to the banquet. Financial support for the award is provided by Google Inc. ACM Prize in Computing The ACM Prize in Computing recognizes an early to mid-career fundamental and innovative contribution in computing theory or practice that through, its impact, and broad implications, exemplifies the greatest achievements of the discipline. The candidate’s contribution should be relatively recent (typically within the last decade), but enough time should have passed to evaluate impact. While there are no specific requirements as to age or time since last degree requirements, the candidate typically would be approaching mid-career. The Prize carries a prize of $250,000. Financial support for the award is provided by Infosys Ltd. ACM Frances E. Allen Award for Outstanding Mentoring The Frances E. Allen Award for Outstanding Mentoring will be presented for the first time in 2021. This award will recognize individuals who have exemplified excellence and/or innovation in mentoring with particular attention to individuals who have shown outstanding leadership in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in computing.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter from the President
    Letter from the President Dear EATCS members, As usual this time of the year, I have the great pleasure to announce the assignments of this year’s Gódel Prize, EATCS Award and Presburger Award. The Gödel Prize 2012, which is co-sponsored by EATCS and ACM SIGACT, has been awarded jointly to Elias Koutsoupias, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Tim Roughgarden, Éva Tardos, Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen. In particular, the prize has been awarded to Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou for their paper Worst-case equilibria, Computer Science Review, 3(2): 65-69, 2009; to Tim Roughgarden and Éva Tardos for their paper How Bad Is Selfish Routing? , Journal of the ACM, 49(2): 236-259, 2002; and to Noam Nisan and Amir Ronen for their paper Algorithmic Mechanism Design, Games and Economic Behavior, 35: 166-196, 2001. As you can read in the laudation published in this issue of the bulletin, these three papers contributed highly influential concepts and results that laid the foundation for an explosive growth in algorithmic game theory, a trans-disciplinary combination of the theory of algorithms and the theory of games that has greatly enriched both fields. The purpose of all three papers was to improve our understanding of how the internet and other complex computational systems behave when users and service providers in these systems act selfishly. On behalf of this year’s Gödel Prize Committee (consisting of Sanjeev Arora, Josep Díaz, Giuseppe F. Italiano, Daniel ✸ ❇❊❆❚❈❙ ♥♦ ✶✵✼ ❊❆❚❈❙ ▼❆❚❚❊❘❙ Spielman, Eli Upfal and Mogens Nielsen as chair) and the whole EATCS community I would like to offer our congratulations and deep respect to all of the six winners! The EATCS Award 2012 has been granted to Moshe Vardi for his decisive influence on the development of theoretical computer science, for his pre-eminent career as a distinguished researcher, and for his role as a most illustrious leader and disseminator.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Network Reachability Analysis Using a Succinct Control Plane Representation
    Efficient Network Reachability Analysis using a Succinct Control Plane Representation Seyed K. Fayaz Tushar Sharma Ari Fogel∗ Ratul Mahajany Todd Millsteinz Vyas Sekar George Varghesez CMU ∗Intentionet yMicrosoft Research zUCLA Abstract— To guarantee network availability and se- curity, operators must ensure that their reachability poli- cies (e.g., A can or cannot talk to B) are correctly im- plemented. This is a difficult task due to the complexity Routers Environment at )me t configura)on files of network configuration and the constant churn in a net- Network work’s environment, e.g., new route announcements ar- Environment at )me t+1 control plane rive and links fail. Current network reachability analysis Environment at )me t+2 … … techniques are limited as they can only reason about the data plane at )me t+2 current “incarnation” of the network, cannot analyze all data plane at )me t+1 configuration features, or are too slow to enable explo- data plane at )me t ration of many environments. We build ERA, a tool for A B efficient reasoning about network reachability. Instead of Figure 1: Reachability behavior of a network (e.g., A reasoning about individual incarnations of the network, can talk to B) is determined by its data plane, which, ERA directly reasons about the network “control plane” in turn, is the current incarnation of the control plane. that generates these incarnations. We address key expres- siveness and scalability challenges by building (i) a suc- To highlight this challenge, it is useful to consider prior cinct model for the network control plane (i.e., various work on network verification.
    [Show full text]
  • The Network Layer Data Plane
    The Network Layer: Data Plane Overview Net 1 R1 Net 2 R2 Net 3 R3 Net 4 1. Network Layer Basics Raj Jain 2. What’s inside a router? Washington University in Saint Louis 3. Forwarding Protocols: IPv4, DHCP, NAT, IPv6 Saint Louis, MO 63130 4. Software Defined Networking [email protected] Audio/Video recordings of this lecture are available on-line at: Note: This class lecture is based on Chapter 4 of the textbook http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ (Kurose and Ross) and the figures provided by the authors. Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain 4-1 4-2 Overview Network Layer Basics Forwarding and Routing 1. Forwarding and Routing T Forwarding: Input link to output link via Address prefix lookup in a table. 2. Connection Oriented Networks: ATM Networks T Routing: Making the Address lookup table 3. Classes of Service T Longest Prefix Match 4. Router Components 5. Packet Queuing and Dropping 125.200.1.3 126.23.45.67 125.200.1.1 125.200.1.2 128.272.15.2 2 1 Prefix Next Router Interface 126.23.45.67/32 125.200.1.1 1 128.272.15/24 125.200.1.2 2 128.272/16 125.200.1.1 1 Ref: Optional Homework: R3 in the textbook Washington University in St. Louis http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cse473-16/ ©2016 Raj Jain Washington University in St.
    [Show full text]
  • SIGARCH Annual Report July 2009 - June 2010
    SIGARCH Annual Report July 2009 - June 2010 Overview The primary mission of SIGARCH continues to be the forum where researchers and practitioners of computer architecture can exchange ideas. SIGARCH sponsors or cosponsors the premier conferences in the field as well as a number of workshops. It publishes a quarterly newsletter and the proceedings of several conferences. It is financially strong with a fund balance of over two million dollars. The SIGARCH bylaws are available online at http://www.acm.org/sigs/bylaws/arch_bylaws.html. Officers and Directors During the past fiscal year Doug Burger served as SIGARCH Chair, David Wood served as Vice Chair, and Kevin Skadron served as Secretary/Treasurer. Margaret Martonosi , Krste Asanovic, Bill Dally, and Sarita Adve served on the board of directors, and Norm Jouppi also served as Past Chair. In addition to these elected positions, Doug DeGroot continues to serve as the Editor of the SIGARCH newsletter Computer Architecture News, and Nathan Binkert was appointed as the new SIGARCH Information Director, providing SIGARCH information online. Rob Schreiber serves as SIGARCH’s liaison on the SC conference steering committee. The Eckert-Mauchly Award, cosponsored by the IEEE Computer Society, is the most prestigious award in computer architecture. SIGARCH endows its half of the award, which is presented annually at the Awards Banquet of ISCA. Bill Dally of NVidia and Stanford University received the award in 2010, "For outstanding contributions to the architecture of interconnection networks and parallel computers.” Last year, SIGARCH petitioned ACM to increase the ACM share of the award to $10,000, using an endowment taken from the SIGARCH fund balance, which ACM has approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Tesseract: a 4D Network Control Plane Hong Yan†, David A
    Tesseract: A 4D Network Control Plane Hong Yany, David A. Maltzz, T. S. Eugene Ngx, Hemant Gogineniy, Hui Zhangy, Zheng Caix yCarnegie Mellon University zMicrosoft Research xRice University Abstract example, load balanced best-effort forwarding may be implemented by carefully tuning OSPF link weights to We present Tesseract, an experimental system that en- indirectly control the paths used for forwarding. Inter- ables the direct control of a computer network that is un- domain routing policy may be indirectly implemented by der a single administrative domain. Tesseract’s design setting OSPF link weights to change the local cost met- is based on the 4D architecture, which advocates the de- ric used in BGP calculations. The combination of such composition of the network control plane into decision, indirect mechanisms create subtle dependencies. For in- dissemination, discovery, and data planes. Tesseract pro- stance, when OSPF link weights are changed to load bal- vides two primary abstract services to enable direct con- ance the traffic in the network, inter-domain routing pol- trol: the dissemination service that carries opaque con- icy may be impacted. The outcome of the synthesis of trol information from the network decision element to the indirect control mechanisms can be difficult to predict nodes in the network, and the node configuration service and exacerbates the complexity of network control [1]. which provides the interface for the decision element to The direct control paradigm avoids these problems be- command the nodes in the network to carry out the de- cause it forces the dependencies between control policies sired control policies. to become explicit.
    [Show full text]