skip to main content
10.1145/2342441.2342450acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Hierarchical policies for software defined networks

Published:13 August 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Hierarchical policies are useful in many contexts in which resources are shared among multiple entities. Such policies can easily express the delegation of authority and the resolution of conflicts, which arise naturally when decision-making is decentralized. Conceptually, a hierarchical policy could be used to manage network resources, but commodity switches, which match packets using flow tables, do not realize hierarchies directly.

This paper presents Hierarchical Flow Tables (HFT), a framework for specifying and realizing hierarchical policies in software defined networks. HFT policies are organized as trees, where each component of the tree can independently determine the action to take on each packet. When independent parts of the tree arrive at conflicting decisions, HFT resolves conflicts with user-defined conflict-resolution operators, which exist at each node of the tree. We present a compiler that realizes HFT policies on a distributed network of OpenFlow switches, and prove its correctness using the Coq proof assistant. We then evaluate the use of HFT to improve performance of networked applications.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

hotsdn-ii-01-hierarchicalpoliciesforsoftwaredefinednetworks.mp4

mp4

34.1 MB

References

  1. http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt. Last accessed April 6th, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. D. Ferguson, A. Guha, J. Place, R. Fonseca, and S. Krishnamurthi. Participatory Networking. In Proc. Hot-ICE '12, San Jose, CA, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. N. Foster, M. J. Freedman, R. Harrison, J. Rexford, M. L. Meola, and D. Walker. Frenetic: A High-Level Language for OpenFlow Networks. In Proc. PRESTO '10, Philadelphia, PA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Godik and T. M. (editors). eXtensible Access Control Markup Language, version 1.1, Aug. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. T. L. Hinrichs, N. S. Gude, M. Casado, J. C. Mitchell, and S. Shenker. Practical Declarative Network Management. In Proc. WREN '09, Barcelona, Spain, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Hunt, M. Konar, F. P. Junqueira, and B. Reed. ZooKeeper: Wait-free coordination for Internet-scale systems. In Proc. USENIX ATC '10, Boston, MA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. W. Kim, P. Sharma, J. Lee, S. Banerjee, J. Tourrilhes, S.-J. Lee, and P. Yalagandula. Automated and Scalable QoS Control for Network Convergence. In Proc. INM/WREN '10, San Jose, CA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. T. Koponen, M. Casado, N. Gude, J. Stribling, L. Poutievski, M. Zhu, R. Ramanathan, Y. Iwata, H. Inoue, T. Hama, and S. Shenker. Onix: A Distributed Control Platform for Large-scale Production Networks. In Proc. OSDI '10, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Lamport. The Part-Time Parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 16(2):133--169, May 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turner. OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks. SIGCOMM CCR, 38:69--74, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Monsanto, N. Foster, R. Harrison, and D. Walker. A Compiler and Run-time System for Network Programming Languages. In Proc. POPL '12, Philadelphia, PA, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Reitblatt, N. Foster, J. Rexford, and D. Walker. Consistent Updates for Software-Defined Networks: Change You Can Believe in! In Proc. HotNets '11, Cambridge, MA, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Roy, S. M. Rumble, R. Stutsman, P. Levis, D. Mazières, and N. Zeldovich. Energy Management in Mobile Devices with the Cinder Operating System. In Proc. EuroSys '11, Salzburg, Austria, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Sherwood, G. Gibb, K.-K. Yap, G. Appenzeller, M. Casado, N. McKeown, and G. Parulkar. Can the Production Network Be the Testbed? In Proc. OSDI '10, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. The Coq Development Team. The Coq proof assistant reference manual - version 8.3. http://coq.inria.fr/, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Voellmy and P. Hudak. Nettle: Taking the Sting Out of Programming Network Routers. In Proc. PADL '11, Austin, TX, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Z. Yang, D. Wetherall, and T. Anderson. A DoS-limiting Network Architecture. In Proc. SIGCOMM '05, Philadelphia, PA, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hierarchical policies for software defined networks

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HotSDN '12: Proceedings of the first workshop on Hot topics in software defined networks
          August 2012
          142 pages
          ISBN:9781450314770
          DOI:10.1145/2342441

          Copyright © 2012 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 13 August 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate88of198submissions,44%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader