CSCN'15 Presentation Changcheng Huang 1 , Jiafeng Zhu 2 1 1 Dept. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

cscn 15 presentation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CSCN'15 Presentation Changcheng Huang 1 , Jiafeng Zhu 2 1 1 Dept. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CSCN'15 Presentation Changcheng Huang 1 , Jiafeng Zhu 2 1 1 Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Dept of Systems and Computer Engineering Carleton University Ottawa Canada 2 R&D Center, Huawei


slide-1
SLIDE 1

CSCN'15 Presentation Changcheng Huang1, Jiafeng Zhu2 1 Dept of Systems and Computer Engineering Carleton University Ottawa 1 – Dept. of Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 2 – R&D Center, Huawei Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, US E-mail: huang@sce.carleton.ca1, jiafeng.zhu@huawei.com2

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Motivation

New services and applications are the driver for future Internet

Network Virtualization

A service by network provider

Multiple virtual networks share a substrate network N d id if diff i l k

Need a way to identify different virtual networks 

Network Function Virtualization (NFV)

Generalization of Service Chaining

Built upon virtual networks

A recursive service relationship

A recursive service relationship 

Need a way to identify service chains 

Application-centric Traffic Steering

Group-based application (server replication, mobility, etc.)

Service providers want to treat user traffic flows differently p y

Switches need a tag to act on 

Recursive service

A common service structure in all industries

Need identifiers for services at all embedded layers

2015/10/29

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Motivation (cont’s)

 An example of recursive virtual network

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-7
SLIDE 7

SDN

 SDN earmarked for future Internet  SDN earmarked for future Internet  More flexibility by separating control and data plane  OpenFlow adopted for communication between control  OpenFlow adopted for communication between control

and data

 Allow forwarding based on arbitrary header fields

Allow forwarding based on arbitrary header fields

2015/10/29

slide-8
SLIDE 8

SDN O Fl SDN: OpenFlow

Switching

* Switch Port MAC src MAC dst Eth type VLAN ID IP Src IP Dst IP Prot TCP sport TCP dport Action * 00:1f:.. * * * * * * * port6

Routing

Switch Port MAC src MAC dst Eth type VLAN ID IP Src IP Dst IP Prot TCP sport TCP dport Action

Firewall

* Port src dst type ID Src Dst Prot sport dport * * * * * 5.6.7.8 * * * port6

Firewall

Switch Port MAC src MAC dst Eth type VLAN ID IP Src IP Dst IP Prot TCP sport TCP dport Action * * * * * * * * * 22 drop

OpenFlow/SDN tutorial, Srini Seetharaman, Deutsche Telekom, Silicon Valley Innovation Center

slide-9
SLIDE 9

SDN Issues

 SDN limitation  SDN limitation

 Based on existing header fields  No field to identify a group-based application  No field to identify a group based application

 Replication servers in data center  User mobility and multiple devices

 No field to identify a service chain  No field to identify a virtual network

N t id tif i i i i t t

 No way to identify services in recursive service structure

2015/10/29

slide-10
SLIDE 10

SDN Challenges

 Why not VLAN id

 Limited to a local area network  Hard to support recursive services

Hard to support recursive services

 Why not IP address

 Multiple services may share one interface  Multiple services may have overlapped address spaces

 Why not port number

 Traffic with multiple port numbers may share one service

p p y

 Combination of L2-4 headers

 Fragmented flows and bloated flow table

T l d t ffi diffi lt t id tif

 Tunneled traffic difficult to identify

2015/10/29

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Existing Solutions

 New header fields need to be defined

New header fields need to be defined

 But where?  VXLAN

 Tunneling VLAN over IP  Limited to extending VLAN service  Limited to extending VLAN service

 OpenADN

 Use two new labels: one at Layer 3.5 and one at layer 4.5  No end-to-end identifier  Complex to implement  Do not support recursive service structure

 Serval

 Add a service access layer between Layer 3 and Layer 4

y y y

 Designed for dynamic binding  Hard to traverse a middle box  Complex to implement  Do not support recursive service structure  Do not support recursive service structure

2015/10/29

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Service Forwarding Label (SFL)

 Used to identify a service relationship between a client and a provider at Layer

5 5

 Client can be a single user or a group

 ALL SFLs form a service namespace  SFLs can be stacked to support recursive services

SFLs can be stacked to support recursive services

 Administered by network providers  Unique within the domain of a network provider  Renewable expiration time  Added into forwarding entry in Flow Table as a new matching field

2015/10/29

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Design Consideration

 Why Layer 5

 Virtual Network service is similar to session layer service

 Establish, manage and terminate Virtual Network between service

Establish, manage and terminate Virtual Network between service provider and network provider  Easy access from application  Allows non-SDN network traversal  Allows middle box traversal

 Why fixed length

 Easy table match (e.g. a 32 bit label can be 0x5434B8E0)

y ( g )

 Why dynamic

 Services typically have limited time  Allows efficient usage of label space  Allows efficient usage of label space

2015/10/29

slide-16
SLIDE 16

An example for SFL usage

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Outline

 Motivation  SDN and Issues  Existing Solutions  Proposed Solution  Use Cases  Conclusions

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Virtual Networks

SFL allows wildcard treatment of traffic from a client network and simplifies forwarding

SFL allows wildcard treatment of traffic from a client network and simplifies forwarding

Support client mobility and group-based applications

Support overlapped private address spaces

2015/10/29

slide-19
SLIDE 19

NFV and Service Chaining

2015/10/29

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Application-centric Traffic Steering

 SFL used to differentiate client traffic with or w/o protection requirement

2015/10/29

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Migration

2015/10/29

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Conclusion

 SFL is a universal service identifier  Used independently or combined with other header

fi ld fields

 Can identify a group-based application

C iddl b

 Can traverse middle box  Easy to implement

 No change to e isting socket interface  No change to existing socket interface  Fit in OpenFlow naturally

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Refernces

https://www.opennetworking.org/

M.M.M.K. Chowdhury and R. Boutaba, “Network virtualization: state of the art and research challenges,” IEEE Communications Magazine 47 (7),20-26.

  • D. Jacobs, “How SDN and NFV simplify network service chain provisioning,”

http://searchsdn techtarget com/tip/How SDN and NFV simplify network service http://searchsdn.techtarget.com/tip/How-SDN-and-NFV-simplify-network-service- chain-provisioning.

  • S. Paul, R. Jain, J. Pan, J. Iyer, D. Oran, “OpenADN: A Case for Open Application Deliver

Network,” Proceedings of ICCCN 2013, July 2013, Nassau, Bahamas.

  • M. Mahalingam, et al., “VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtulized Layer 2

g y g y Networks over Layer 3 Networks,” IETF draft, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan/.

  • E. Nordstrom, et al., “Serval: an end-host stack for service-centric networking,”

Proceeding of 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, April 25-27, 2012, San Jose, US. Implementation, April 25 27, 2012, San Jose, US.

  • R. Sherwood, et al., “FlowVisor: A Network Virtualization Layer,” OPENFLOW-TR-2009-

1, OpenFlow Consortium, October 2009

  • S. Jain, et al., “B4: Experience with a Globally-Deployed Software Defined WAN,” ACM

SIGCOMM 2013, August 12-16, 2013, Hong Kong

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Thank You