skip to main content
10.1145/3359993.3366643acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesconextConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Online Reprogrammable Multi Tenant Switches

Published:09 December 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent research shows many benefits for cloud workloads and network operations when putting software functionality onto switches. Sharing the physical resources of a programmable switch between multiple tenants and workloads enables the widespread deployment of on-switch software functionality. Currently, changing the program on a programmable switch incurs significant switch downtime, connectivity loss, and service interruption. We, therefore propose a modification to the common programmable switch architecture to enable hot-pluggability, the ability to insert, modify, and remove on-path software functionality without interrupting the network operation. With hot-pluggability, a programmable switch can be shared between applications of different on-switch lifetime and therefore also between different tenants. Such sharing requires performance and program isolation between different on-switch functions and tenants. Our proposal makes on-switch software functionality deployable within production networks and enables programmable switches to be offered as a service to multiple tenants within cloud and ISP networks.

References

  1. ARISTA. 2018. Arista 7170 Multi-function Programmable Networking. https://www.arista.com/assets/data/pdf/Whitepapers/7170_White_Paper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Paul Barham, Boris Dragovic, Keir Fraser, Steven Hand, Tim Harris, Alex Ho, Rolf Neugebauer, Ian Pratt, and Andrew Warfield. 2003. Xen and the Art of Virtualization. SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 37, 5 (Oct. 2003), 164--177. https://doi.org/10.1145/1165389.945462Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Antonin Bas. 2018. Leveraging Stratum and Tofino Fast Refresh for Software Upgrades. https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Tofino_Fast_Refresh.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreas Blenk, Arsany Basta, Martin Reisslein, and Wolfgang Kellerer. 2016. Survey on Network Virtualization Hypervisors for Software Deined Networking. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 18, 1 (First Quarter 2016), 655--685. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2489183Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Pat Bosshart, Dan Daly, Glen Gibb, Martin Izzard, Nick McKeown, Jennifer Rexford, Cole Schlesinger, Dan Talayco, Amin Vahdat, George Varghese, and David Walker. 2014. P4: Programming Protocol-independent Packet Processors. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44, 3 (July 2014), 87--95. https://doi.org/10.1145/2656877.2656890Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pat Bosshart, Glen Gibb, Hun-Seok Kim, George Varghese, Nick McKeown, Martin Izzard, Fernando Mujica, and Mark Horowitz. 2013. Forwarding Metamorphosis: Fast Programmable Match-action Processing in Hardware for SDN. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM '13). ACM, 99--110. https://doi.org/10.1145/2486001.2486011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Adrian Caulfield, Paolo Costa, and Monia Ghobadi. 2018. Beyond SmartNICs: Towards a Fully Programmable Cloud. In IEEE International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPSR.2018.8850757Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Huynh Tu Dang, Marco Canini, Fernando Pedone, and Robert Soulé. 2016. Paxos Made Switch-y. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 46, 2 (May 2016), 18--24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2935634.2935638Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. H. T. Dang, J. Hofmann, Y. Liu, M. Radi, D. Vucinic, R. Soulé, and F. Pedone. 2018. Consensus for Non-volatile Main Memory. In 26th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP). 406--411. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNP.2018.00056Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Huynh Tu Dang, Daniele Sciascia, Marco Canini, Fernando Pedone, and Robert Soulé. 2015. NetPaxos: Consensus at Network Speed. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Software Defined Networking Research (SOSR '15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2774993.2774999Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Christoph Dietzel, Matthias Wichtlhuber, Georgios Smaragdakis, and Anja Feldmann. 2018. Stellar: Network Attack Mitigation Using Advanced Black-holing. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT '18). ACM, 152--164. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281411.3281413Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Daniel Firestone, Andrew Putnam, Sambhrama Mundkur, Derek Chiou, Alireza Dabagh, Mike Andrewartha, Hari Angepat, Vivek Bhanu, Adrian Caulfield, Eric Chung, Harish Kumar Chandrappa, Somesh Chaturmohta, Matt Humphrey, Jack Lavier, Norman Lam, Fengfen Liu, Kalin Ovtcharov, Jitu Padhye, Gautham Popuri, Shachar Raindel, Tejas Sapre, Mark Shaw, Gabriel Silva, Madhan Sivakumar, Nisheeth Srivastava, Anshuman Verma, Qasim Zuhair, Deepak Bansal, Doug Burger, Kushagra Vaid, David A. Maltz, and Albert Greenberg. 2018. Azure Accelerated Networking: SmartNICs in the Public Cloud. In 15th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '18). USENIX Association, 51--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeffrey Fong, Xiang Wang, Yaxuan Qi, Jun Li, and Weirong Jiang. 2012. ParaSplit: A scalable architecture on FPGA for terabit packet classification. In 20th Annual Symposium on High-Performance Interconnects. IEEE, 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1109/HOTI.2012.17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. René Glebke, Martin Henze, Klaus Wehrle, Philipp Niemietz, Daniel Trauth, Patrick Mattfeld, and Thomas Bergs. 2019. A Case for Integrated Data Processing in Large-Scale Cyber-Physical Systems. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 7252--7261. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2019.871Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. René Glebke, Johannes Krude, Ike Kunze, Jan Rüth, Felix Senger, and Klaus Wehrle. 2019. Towards Executing Computer Vision Functionality on Programmable Network Devices. In 1st ACM CoNEXT Workshop on Emerging in-Network Computing Paradigms (ENCP '19). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359993.3366646Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David Hancock and Jacobus van der Merwe. 2016. HyPer4: Using P4 to Virtualize the Programmable Data Plane. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT '16). ACM, 35--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999572.2999607Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rob Harrison, Qizhe Cai, and Arpit Guptaand Jennifer Rexford. 2018. Network-Wide Heavy Hitter Detection with Commodity Switches. In Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR '18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185467.3185476Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Stephen Ibanez, Gordon Brebner, Nick McKeown, and Noa Zilberman. 2019. The P4->NetFPGA Workflow for Line-Rate Packet Processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA '19). ACM, 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3289602.3293924Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Theo Jepsen, Daniel Alvarez, Nate Foster, Changhoon Kim, Jeongkeun Lee, Masoud Moshref, and Robert Soulé. 2019. Fast String Searching on PISA. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR '19). ACM, 21--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3314148.3314356Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Vimalkumar Jeyakumar, Mohammad Alizadeh, Yilong Geng, Changhoon Kim, and David Mazières. 2014. Millions of Little Minions: Using Packets for Low Latency Network Programming and Visibility. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM '14). ACM, 3--14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2619239.2626292Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Xin Jin, Xiaozhou Li, Haoyu Zhang, Nate Foster, Jeongkeun Lee, Robert Soulé, Changhoon Kim, and Ion Stoica. 2018. NetChain: Scale-Free Sub-RTT Coordination. In 15th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '18). USENIX Association, 35--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Xin Jin, Xiaozhou li, Haoyu Zhang, Robert Soulé, Jeongkeun Lee, Nate Foster, Changhoon Kim, and Ion Stoica. 2017. NetCache: Balancing Key-Value Stores with Fast In-Network Caching. In Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP '17). ACM, 121--136. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132747.3132764Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Changhoon Kim. 2017. Why Data-plane Will Be Programmable: New Paradigms and Use Cases In Networking. https://conferences.sigcomm.org/events/apnet2017/slides/chang.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Alberto Lernen, Rana Hussein, and Philippe Cudre-Maurox. 2019. The Case for Network-Accelerated Query Processing. In 9th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR '19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jialin Li, Ellis Michael, Naveen Kr. Sharma, Adriana Szekeres, and Dan R. K. Ports. 2016. Just Say NO to Paxos Overhead: Replacing Consensus with Network Ordering. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI '16). USENIX Association, 467--483.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zaoxing Liu, Antonis Manousis, Gregory Vorsanger, Vyas Sekar, and Validimir Braverman. 2016. One Sketch to Rule Them All: Rethinking Network Flow Monitoring with UnivMon. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM '16). ACM, 101--114. https://doi.org/10.1145/2934872.2934906Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Luo Mai, Lukas Rupprecht, Abdul Alim, Paolo Costa, Matteo Migliavacca, Peter Pietzuch, and Alexander L. Wolf Wolf. 2014. NetAgg: Using Middleboxes for Application-specific On-path Aggregation in Data Centres. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International on Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (CoNEXT '14). ACM, 249--261. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674005.2674996Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nick McKeown, Tom Anderson, Hari Balakrishnan, Guru Parulkar, Larry Peterson, Jennifer Rexford, Scott Shenker, and Jonathan Turner. 2008. OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 38, 2 (April 2008), 69--74. https://doi.org/10.1145/1355734.1355746Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rui Miao, Hongyi Zeng, Changhoon Kim, Jeongkeun Lee, and Minlan Yu. 2017. SilkRoad: Making Stateful Layer-4 Load Balancing Fast and Cheap Using Switching ASICs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM '17). ACM, 15--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098822.3098824Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sascha Muhlbach and Andreas Koch. 2010. A dynamically reconfigured network platform for high-speed malware collection. In 2010 International Conference on Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs. IEEE, 79--84. https://doi.org/10.1109/ReConFig.2010.41Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Larry Peterson, Tom Anderson, Sachin Katti, Nick McKeown, Guru Parulkar, Jennifer Rexford, Mahadev Satyanarayanan, Oguz Sunay, and Amin Vahdat. 2019. Democratizing the Network Edge. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 49, 2 (April 2019), 31--36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3336937.3336942Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Dan R. K. Ports and Jacob Nelson. 2019. When Should The Network Be The Computer?. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (HotOS '19). ACM, 209--215. https://doi.org/10.1145/3317550.3321439Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jan Rüth, René Glebke, Klaus Wehrle, Vedad Causevic, and Sandra Hirche. 2018. Towards In-Network Industrial Feedback Control. In Proceedings of the 2018 Morning Workshop on In-Network Computing (NetCompute '18). ACM, 14--19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229591.3229592Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Amedeo Sapio, Ibrahim Abdelaziz, Abdulla Aldilaijan, Marco Canini, and Panos Kalnis. 2017. In-Network Computation is a Dumb Idea Whose Time Has Come. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets 2017). ACM, 150--156. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152434.3152461Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Amedeo Sapio, Marco Canini, Chen-Yu Ho, Jacob Nelson, Panos Kalnis, Changhoon Kim, Arvind Krishnamurthy, Masoud Moshref, Dan R. K. Ports, and Peter Richtárik. 2019. Scaling Distributed Machine Learning with In-Network Aggregation. Technical Report. KAUST. http://hdl.handle.net/10754/631179.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Vibhaalakshmi Sivaraman, Srinivas Narayana, Ori Rottenstreich, S. Muthukrishnan, and Jennifer Rexford. 2017. Heavy-Hitter Detection Entirely in the Data Plane. In Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research (SOSR '17). ACM, 164--176. https://doi.org/10.1145/3050220.3063772Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David L. Tennenhouse and David J. Wetherall. 1996. Towards an Active Network Architecture. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 26, 2 (April 1996), 5--17. https://doi.org/10.1145/231699.231701Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yuta Tokusashi, Huynh Tu Dang, Fernando Pedone, Robert Soulé, and Noa Zilberman. 2019. The Case For In-Network Computing On Demand. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth EuroSys Conference 2019 (EuroSys '19). ACM, 21:1--21:16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3302424.3303979Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yuta Tokusashi, Hiroki Matsutani, and Noa Zilberman. 2018. LaKe: The Power of In-Network Computing. In 2018 International Conference on ReConFigurable Computing and FPGAs (ReConFil 2018). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RECONFIG.2018.8641696Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhijun Wang, Hao Che, Mohan Kumar, and Sajal K. Das. 2004. CoPTUA: Consistent Policy Table Update Algorithm for TCAM without locking. IEEE Transactions on Computers 53, 12 (Oct. 2004), 1602--1614. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.2004.108Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Xilinx. [n.d.]. Alveo U280 Data Center Accelerator Card. https://www.xilinx.com/products/boards-and-kits/alveo/u280.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Xilinx. [n.d.]. SDNet. https://xilinx.com/sdnet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Cheng Zhang, Jun Bi, Yu Zhou, and Jianping Wu. 2019. HyperVDP: High-Performance Virtualization of the Programmable Data Plane. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 37, 3 (March 2019), 556--569. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2019.2894308Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Peng Zheng, Theophilus Benson, and Chengchen Hu. 2018. P4Visor: Lightweight Virtualization and Composition Primitives for Building and Testing Modular Programs. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT '18). ACM, 98--111. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281411.3281436Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Noa Zilberman, Yury Audzevich, G. Adam Covington, and Andrew W. Moore. 2014. NetFPGA SUME: Toward 100 Gbps as Research Commodity. IEEE Micro 34, 5 (July 2014), 32--41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MM.2014.61Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Online Reprogrammable Multi Tenant Switches

          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
            ENCP '19: Proceedings of the 1st ACM CoNEXT Workshop on Emerging in-Network Computing Paradigms
            December 2019
            67 pages
            ISBN:9781450370004
            DOI:10.1145/3359993

            Copyright © 2019 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 December 2019

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            ENCP '19 Paper Acceptance Rate9of16submissions,56%Overall Acceptance Rate9of16submissions,56%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader