Software Defined Networking (SDN)

Marco.Cello@unige.it
DITEN – Università di Genova

Talk @ IEIIT – Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR)

Genova 28 Marzo 2014

Material from:
• Scott Shenker (UC Berkeley), “Software-Defined Networking at the Crossroads”, Standford, Colloquium
on Computer Systems Seminar Series (EE380), 2013.
• Scott Shenker (UC Berkeley), “A Gentle Introduction to Software Defined Networks”, Technion Computer
Engineering Center, 2012. http://tce.technion.ac.il/files/2012/06/Scott-shenker.pdf
• Scott Shenker (UC Berkeley), “The Future of Networking, and the Past of Protocols”, Open Network
Summit, 2011. http://www.opennetsummit.org/archives/oct11/shenker-tue.pdf
• Nick McKeown (Stanford), ITC Keynote, San Francisco, 2011.
http://yuba.stanford.edu/~nickm/talks/ITC%20Keynote%20Sept%202011.ppt
Presented by Gregory Kesden in 14-848, Fall 2017
1
 A Short History of SDN
~2004: Research on new management paradigms
RCP, 4D [Princeton, CMU,….]
SANE, Ethane [Stanford/Berkeley]
2008: Software-Defined Networking (SDN)
NOX Network Operating System [Nicira]
OpenFlow switch interface [Stanford/Nicira]
2011: Open Networking Foundation (~69 members)
Board: Google, Yahoo, Verizon, DT, Microsoft, Facebook, NTT
Members: Cisco, Juniper, HP, Dell, Broadcom, IBM,…..
2013: Latest Open Networking Summit
1600 attendees, Google: SDN used for their WAN
Commercialized, in production use (few places)

2
 Why Was SDN Needed?

• Networks are hard to manage

- Computation and storage have been virtualized
- Creating a more flexible and manageable infrastructure
- Networks are still notoriously hard to manage
- Network administrators large share of sysadmin staff

• Networks are hard to evolve

- Ongoing innovation in systems software
- New languages, operating systems, etc.
- Networks are stuck in the past
- Routing algorithms change very slowly
- Network management extremely primitive

• Networks design not based on formal principles

- OS courses teach fundamental principles
- Mutual exclusion and other synchronization primitives
- Files, file systems, threads, and other building blocks
- Networking courses teach a big bag of protocols
3
 Networks design not based on formal principles

• Networks used to be simple

- Basic Ethernet/IP straightforward, easy to manage

• New control requirements have led to complexity

- ACLs, VLANs, TE, Middleboxes, DPI,…

• The infrastructure still works...

- Only because of our great ability to master complexity

• Ability to master complexity both blessing and

curse

4
 How Programming Made the Transition

• Machine languages: no abstractions

- Had to deal with low-level details

• Higher-level languages: OS and other abstractions

- File system, virtual memory, abstract data types, ...

• Modern languages: even more abstractions

- Object orientation, garbage collection,...

Abstractions simplify programming

Easier to write, maintain, reason about programs

Abstractions are the way we extracted simplicity

So, what role do abstractions play in networking?
5
 The Two Networking “Planes”

• Data plane: processing and delivery of packets with local

forwarding state
– Forwarding state + packet header forwarding decision
• Control plane: compute the state in routers (forwarding
state)
– Determines how and where packets are forwarded
– Routing, traffic engineering, firewall state, …
– Implemented with distributed protocols, manual
configuration (and scripting) or centralized computation

• These different planes require different abstractions

6
 Data Plane Abstractions: Layers

Applications
…built on…
Reliable (or unreliable) transport
…built on…
Best-effort global packet delivery
…built on…
Best-effort local packet delivery
…built on…
Local physical transfer of bits

7
Control Plane Abstractions

8
 (Too) Many Control Plane Mechanisms

• Variety of goals:
- Routing: distributed routing algorithms
- Isolation: ACLs, VLANs, Firewalls,…
- Traffic engineering: adjusting weights, MPLS,…

• No modularity, limited functionality

• Control Plane: mechanism without abstraction

- Too many mechanisms, not enough functionality

9
What abstractions should we
apply to the control plane?

10
 The Control Plane Problem

• Control plane must compute forwarding state. To

accomplish its task, the control plane must:
1. Figure out what network looks like (topology)
2. Figure out how to accomplish goal on given topology
3. Tell the swtiches what to do (configure forwarding
state)

• We view this as a natural set of requirements....

- And we require each new protocol to solve all three

This is crazy!
11
 Programming Analogy
• What if you were told to write a program that must…
- Be aware of the hardware you were running on
- Specify where each bit was stored

• Programmer would immediately define abstractions:

- Machine-independent interface
- Virtual memory interface

• Programmers use abstractions to separate concerns

- Network designers should too!

12
 The Control Plane Problem
• Control plane must compute forwarding state. To
accomplish its task, the control plane must:
1. Figure out what network looks like (topology)
2. Figure out how to accomplish goal on given topology
3. Tell the swtiches what to do (configure forwarding
state)

• What components do we want to reuse?

1. Determining the topology information
3. Configuring forwarding state on routers/switches

• You now know everthing you need about SDN:

- It is the use of those two control planes abstractions
13
SDN: Two Control Plane Abstractions
• Abstraction: global network view
- Provides information about current network
- Implementation: “Network Operating System”
- Runs on servers in network (replicated for reliability)

• Abstraction: forwarding model

- Provides standard way of defining forwarding state
- This is OpenFlow
- Specification of <match,action> flow entries

14
 Network
SDN of Switches
Traditional
is “Layers”
Control and/or
for Control Routers
Mechanisms
Plane
routing, access control, etc.
Control Program

Global Network View

Distributed algorithm running between neighbors

Network OS (e.g. NOX)
Complicated task-specific distributed algorithm

Forwarding Model

15
 Example1: OSPF and Dijkstra
• OSPF
- RFC 2328: 245 pages
• Distributed System
- Builds consistent, up-to-date map of the network:
101 pages
• Dijkstra’s Algorithm
- Operates on map: 4 pages

16
Example1: OSPF and Dijkstra

17
 Example2: Load Balancing

Optimal Load Balancer:

Ideally each HTTP
request would be sent
over a path which is
lightly loaded to a server
which is lightly loaded in
order to minimize the
request

18
Example2: Load Balancing
Current Load Balancer:
it can choose only the
lightly loaded server

KEMP Technologies
LoadMasterTM 2400

19
Example2: Load Balancing

20
 Example2: Load Balancing

N. Handigol, S. Seetharaman, M. Flajslik, R. Johari, and N. McKeown. Aster*x:

Load-balancing as a network primitive. 9th GENI Engineering Conference
(Plenary), November 2010 21
 Specification Abstraction
• Control program must express desired behavior
- Whether it be isolation, access control, or QoS

• It should not be responsible for implementing that

behavior on physical network infrastructure
- Requires configuring the forwarding tables in each switch

• Proposed abstraction: Virtual Topology of network

- Virtual Topology models only enough detail to specify
goals
- Will depend on task semantics

22
 Simple Example: Access Control
• Operator’s goal: prevent A’s packets from reaching B
• Control program does so with access control entries:
- Control program must respond to topology/routing changes
- Makes it hard to write correct control program

A AB drop
Global Network View

AB drop

B 23
 Network Virtualization
• Introduce new abstraction and new SDN layer

• Abstraction: Virtual Topology

- Allows operator to express requirements and policies
- Via a set of logical switches and their configurations

• Layer: Network Hypervisor

- Translates those requirements into switch configurations
- “Compiler” for virtual topologies

24
Virtualization Simplifies Control Program
Abstract Network View
A
AB drop

B
Hypervisor then inserts flow entries as needed

A AB drop
Global Network View

AB drop

B 25
Software Defined Network

Virtual Topology

Control
Network Program
Hypervisor

Global Network View

Network OS

26
 Clean Separation of Concerns
• Control program: express goals on Virtual Topology
- Operator Requirements
- Configuration = Function(view)
- Not a distributed protocol, now just a graph algorithm

• Network Hypervisor: Virtual Topology  Global Network View

• Network OS: Global Network View  physical switches

- Gathers information for global network view
- Conveys configurations from control program to switches

• Router/switches: merely follow orders from NOS

• Clean separation of control and data planes

- Not packaged togheter in proprietary boxes
- Enables use of commodity hardware, 3rd party software
- Easier to write, maintain, verify, reason about, … 27
SDN: Layers for the Control Plane
Control Program
Abstract Network View

Network Virtualization
Global Network View

Network OS

28
 Abstractions Don’t Eliminate Complexity
• Every component of system is tractable
- NOS, Virtualization are still complicated pieces of code

• SDN main achievements:

- Simplifies interface for control program (user-specific)
- Pushes complexity into reusable code (SDN platform)

• Just like compilers….

29
 Virtualization is Killer App for SDN
• Consider a multi-tenant datacenter
- Want to allow each tenant to specify virtual topology
- This defines their individual policies and requirements

• Datacenter’s network hypervisor compiles these

virtual topologies into set of switch configurations
- Takes 1000s of individual tenant virtual topologies
- Computes configurations to implement all simultaneously

• This is what people are paying money for….

- Enabled by SDN’s ability to virtualize the network

30
What Should I Remember About SDN?

31
 Four Crucial Points
• SDN is merely set of abstractions for control plane
- Not a specific set of mechanisms
- OpenFlow is least interesting aspect of SDN, technically

• SDN involves computing a function….

- NOS handles distribution of state

• …on an abstract network

- Can ignore actual physical infrastructure

• Network virtualization is the “killer app”

- Already virtualized compute, storage; network is next
32
Does SDN have larger implications?

Aside from providing easier network management,

how will SDN change the world of networking?

33
 Control/Data Planes Become Separate
• Currently control plane tied to data plane

• NOS runs on servers: observes/controls data plane

• Changes the deployment and business models

- Can buy the control plane separately from the switches
- Enabling commodity hardware and 3rd party software

• Changes the testing model

- Simulator to analyze large-scale control planes

34
 Networking Becomes Edge-Oriented
• Can implement most control functionality at edge
- Access control, QoS, mobility, migration, monitoring…

• Network core merely delivers packets edge-to-edge

- Current protocols do a good job (mostly)

• Let edge handle all complexity

- Complicated matching, actions
- “Overlay” networking via tunnels

• This has two important implications

35
 1. Makes SDN Incrementally Deployable
• Host software often has OpenFlow switch
- Open vSwitch (OVS) in Linux, Xen,…

• The edge becomes a software switch

- Core of network can be legacy hardware

• Enables incremental deployment of SDN

- Might never need OpenFlow in hardware switches….

36
2. Networking Becomes Software-Oriented
• All complicated forwarding done in software (edge)

• And control plane is a program (on a server)…

- …not a protocol (on a closed proprietary switch/router)

• We are programming the network, not designing it

- Focus on modularity and abstractions, not packet headers

• Innovation at software, not hardware, speeds

• Software lends itself to clean abstractions

37
 SDN Vision: Networks Become “Normal”
• Hardware: Cheap, interchangeable, Moore’s Law

• Software: Frequent releases, decoupled from HW

• Functionality: Mostly driven by SW

- Edge (software switch)
- Control program

• Solid intellectual foundations

38
 Recap - The network is changing

Feature Feature
Network OS

Feature Feature

OS
Feature Feature
Custom Hardware
OS
Feature Feature
Custom Hardware
OS
Feature Feature
Custom Hardware
OS

Feature Feature
Custom Hardware

OS
Custom Hardware
39
 Recap - Software Defined Network (SDN)
3. Consistent, up-to-date global network view 2. At least one Network OS
probably many.
Control Program 1 Control Program 2 Open- and closed-source

Network OS
1. Open interface to packet forwarding

Packet
Forwarding Packet
Forwarding

Packet
Packet Forwarding
Forwarding
Packet
Forwarding
40
 OpenFlow Basics

Control Program A Control Program B

Network OS

OpenFlow Protocol

Ethernet Switch
Control Path OpenFlow

Data Path (Hardware)

41
 Primitives <Match, Action>
• Match arbitrary bits in headers:
Header Data

Match: 1000x01xx0101001x

– Match on any header, or new header

– Allows any flow granularity
• Action
– Forward to port(s), drop, send to controller
– Overwrite header with mask, push or pop
– Forward at specific bit-rate

42
 OpenFlow Basics

Control Program A Control Program B

Network OS
“If header = p, send to port 4”
Packet “If header = q, overwrite header with r,
Forwarding add header s, and send to ports 5,6”
“If header = ?, send to me”

Flow
Packet Table(s)
Forwarding Packet
Forwarding

43
More sophisticated flow identification

Application level flow

44
More sophisticated flow identification

IP flow

45
More sophisticated flow identification

Custom flow

46
More sophisticated flow identification

My flow

47
 SDN “Implementations” –
Software/Hardware
• Forwarding Model
- OpenFlow
- ForCES
• Software Switches compliant with OpenFlow std.
- Open vSwitch
- Pantou/OpenWRT
- Ofsoftswitch13
- Indigo
• Controller compliant with OpenFlow std.
- POX
- NOX
- MUL
- Maestro
• Available Commodity Switches compliant with OpenFlow std.
- Hewlett-Packard 8200zl, 6600, 6200zl,
- Brocade 5400zl, and 3500/3500yl
- IBM NetIron CES 2000 Series

Bruno Astuto A. Nunes, Marc Mendonca, Xuan-Nam Nguyen, Katia Obraczka, and Thierry Turletti, “A Survey of
Software-Defined Networking: Past, Present, and Future of Programmable Networks”, Technical Report,
http://hal.inria.fr/hal-00825087/PDF/bare_jrnl.pdf
48
 SDN Literature - Sources
• Browsing on proceedings of:
– ACM Sigcomm;
– ACM Sigcomm Workshop HotSDN;
– ACM Sigcomm Workshop HotNets;
– ACM CoNEXT;
– USENIX NSDI;
– USENIX HotCloud;
– USENIX Hot-ICE;
– ONS;
• SDN reading list: http://www.nec-
labs.com/~lume/sdn-reading-list.html

49
 SDN research areas

Controller scalability
multi-controller
reduce messages sent to Traffic Management/QoS
controller flow scheduling

SDN applications
switch/CPU design Load balancing
SDN architecture

approaches Transport protocol

Network Updates Monitoring

Programming Security

Testing/Debugging

50