skip to main content
10.1145/3005745.3005748acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Network Monitoring as a Streaming Analytics Problem

Published:09 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Programmable switches potentially make it easier to perform flexible network monitoring queries at line rate, and scalable stream processors make it possible to fuse data streams to answer more sophisticated queries about the network in real-time. However, processing such network monitoring queries at high traffic rates requires both the switches and the stream processors to filter the traffic iteratively and adaptively so as to extract only that traffic that is of interest to the query at hand. While the realization that network monitoring is a streaming analytics problem has been made earlier, our main contribution in this paper is the design and implementation of Sonata, a closed-loop system that enables network operators to perform streaming analytics for network monitoring applications at scale. To achieve this objective, Sonata allows operators to express a network monitoring query by considering each packet as a tuple. More importantly, Sonata allows them to partition the query across both the switches and the stream processor, and through iterative refinement, Sonata's runtime attempts to extract only the traffic that pertains to the query, thus ensuring that the stream processor can scale to satisfy a large number of queries for traffic at very high rates. We show with a simple example query involving DNS reflection attacks and traffic traces from one of the world's largest IXPs that Sonata can capture 95% of all traffic pertaining to the query, while reducing the overall data rate by a factor of about 400 and the number of required counters by four orders of magnitude.

References

  1. 1.D. Abadi, D. Carney, U. Cetintemel, M. Cherniack, C. Convey, C. Erwin, E. Galvez, M. Hatoun, A. Maskey, A. Rasin, et al. Aurora: A Data Stream Management System. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 666–666. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.Apache Spark. http://spark.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.M. Armbrust, R. S. Xin, C. Lian, Y. Huai, D. Liu, J. K. Bradley, X. Meng, T. Kaftan, M. J. Franklin, A. Ghodsi, et al. Spark SQL: Relational Data Processing in Spark. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1383–1394. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.D. Black, K. McCloghrie, and J. Schoenwaelder. Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Scheme for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). RFC 4088 (Proposed Standard), June 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.K. Borders, J. Springer, and M. Burnside. Chimera: A Declarative Language for Streaming Network Traffic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 21st USENIX Conference on Security Symposium, pages 365–379. USENIX, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6.P. Bosshart, D. Daly, G. Gibb, M. Izzard, N. McKeown, J. Rexford, C. Schlesinger, D. Talayco, A. Vahdat, G. Varghese, and D. Walker. P4: Programming Protocol-independent Packet Processors. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 44(3):87–95, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.P. Bright. Spamhaus DDoS grows to Internet-threatening Size. ArsTechnica, March 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.T. Calders, N. Dexters, J. J. Gillis, and B. Goethals. Mining frequent itemsets in a stream. Information Systems, 39:233–255, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.D. Carney, U. Çetintemel, M. Cherniack, C. Convey, S. Lee, G. Seidman, M. Stonebraker, N. Tatbul, and S. Zdonik. Monitoring Streams: A New Class of Data Management Applications. In VLDB, pages 215–226, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.B. Claise. Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9. RFC 3954 (Informational), October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.B. Claise. Specification of the ip flow information export (ipfix) protocol for the exchange of ip traffic flow information. Technical report, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.G. Cormode and M. Garofalakis. Approximate Continuous Querying Over Distributed Streams. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 33(2):9, June 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.C. Cranor, T. Johnson, O. Spataschek, and V. Shkapenyuk. Gigascope: A Stream Database for Network Applications. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 647–651. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Five Year Traffic Growth at DE-CIX. https://www.de-cix.net/about/statistics/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.Deepfield Defender. http://deepfield.com/products/deepfield-defender/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.Google Cloud DataFlow. https://cloud.google.com/dataflow/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.D. Huang, Y. S. Koh, and G. Dobbie. Rare Pattern Mining on Data Streams. In International Conference on Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery, pages 303–314. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. 18.L. Jose, M. Yu, and J. Rexford. Online measurement of large traffic aggregates on commodity switches. In Proceedings of Hot-ICE'11. USENIX, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. 19.J. Jung, V. Paxson, A. W. Berger, and H. Balakrishnan. Fast Portscan Detection using Sequential Hypothesis Testing. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 211–225, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. 20.Z. Liu, G. Vorsanger, V. Braverman, and V. Sekar. Enabling a RISC Approach for Software-Defined Monitoring using Universal Streaming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, page 21. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turner. OpenFlow: Enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.R. Motwani, J. Widom, A. Arasu, B. Babcock, S. Babu, M. Datar, G. Manku, C. Olston, J. Rosenstein, and R. Varma. Query Processing, Resource Management, and Approximation in a Data Stream Management System. In Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), January 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.S. Narayana, A. Sivaraman, V. Nathan, M. Alizadeh, D. Walker, J. Rexford, V. Jeyakumar, and C. Kim. Co-designing software and hardware for declarative network performance management. In HotNets, 2016. To appear.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 24.OpenSOC. http://opensoc.github.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.OpenSOC Scalability. https://goo.gl/CX2jWr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.P. Phaal, S. Panchen, and N. McKee. InMon corporation's sFlow. RFC3176 (September 2001), 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.O. Polychroniou, R. Sen, and K. A. Ross. Track Join: Distributed Joins with Minimal Network Traffic. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 1483–1494. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 28.Ryu SDN Framework. http://osrg.github.io/ryu/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.Apache Storm. http://storm.apache.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.M. Sullivan. Tribeca: A Stream Database Manager for Network Traffic Analysis. In VLDB, volume 96, page 594, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31.S. Sun, Z. Huang, H. Zhong, D. Dai, H. Liu, and J. Li. Efficient Monitoring of Skyline Queries over Distributed Data Streams. Knowledge and information systems, 25(3):575–606, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32.Tigon. http://tigon.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.UDP-Based Distributed Reflective Denial of Service Attacks. https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA14-017A.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.R. Viswanathan, G. Ananthanarayanan, and A. Akella. Clarinet: WAN-Aware Optimization for Analytics Queries. In OSDI, 2016. To appear.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. 35.M. Yu, L. Jose, and R. Miao. Software Defined Traffic Measurement with OpenSketch. In 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 13), pages 29–42, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 36.L. Yuan, C.-N. Chuah, and P. Mohapatra. Progme: Towards programmable network measurement. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., 37(4):97–108, August 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Network Monitoring as a Streaming Analytics Problem

    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
      HotNets '16: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks
      November 2016
      217 pages
      ISBN:9781450346610
      DOI:10.1145/3005745

      Copyright © 2016 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: 9 November 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      HotNets '16 Paper Acceptance Rate30of108submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate110of460submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader