1 / 15

Cabo: Concurrent Architectures are Better than One

Cabo: Concurrent Architectures are Better than One. Jennifer Rexford Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex. Joint work with Nick Feamster and Lixin Gao http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/cabo.pdf. Deciding Not to Decide.

zelig
Télécharger la présentation

Cabo: Concurrent Architectures are Better than One

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cabo: Concurrent Architectures are Better than One Jennifer Rexford Princeton University http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex Joint work with Nick Feamster and Lixin Gao http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/cabo.pdf

  2. Deciding Not to Decide • Flexibility has been key to the Internet’s success • Many different applications and services • Beyond anything the initial designers ever envisioned • Today this flexibility is limited to the end systems • Not surprisingly, this is where we have seen innovation • And, the “inside” is quite difficult to change • Witness the fate of IPv6, QoS, multicast, secure routing • Even if we could start over… • Maybe the design problem is over-constrained • Too many goals, some conflicting ?

  3. It’s Hard to be a Routing Protocol These Days • Many, many design goals • Global reachability • Fast convergence • Efficient use of resources • Low protocol overhead • Secure control plane • Flexible routing policies • <your wish list here> • Perhaps we cannot satisfy all of these goals • No matter how hard we try…

  4. Example: Security vs. Reachability

  5. Example: Convergence vs. Scalability

  6. Virtualization to the Rescue • Multiple customized architectures in parallel • Multiple logical routers on a single platform • Resource isolation in CPU, forwarding table, bandwidth • Programmability for custom protocols and mechanisms

  7. Applications Within an Single ISP • Customized virtual networks • Security for online banking • Fast-convergence for VoIP and gaming • Specialized handling of suspicious traffic • Testing and deploying new protocols • Evaluate on a separate virtual network • Rather than in a dedicated test lab • Large scale and early-adopter traffic • Leasing virtual components to others • ISPs have unused node and link capacity • Can allow others to construct services on top

  8. Enabling Economic Refactoring • Infrastructure providers:Maintain routers, links, data centers, and other physical infrastructure • Service providers:Offer end-to-end services (e.g., layer 3 VPNs, SLAs, etc.) to users Infrastructure Providers Service Providers Today: ISPs try to play both roles, and cannot offer end-to-end services

  9. Similar Trends in Other Industries • Commercial aviation • Infrastructure providers: Airports • Infrastructure: Gates, “hands and eyes” support, etc. • Service providers: Airlines JFK SFO NRT ATL Other examples: airplanes, auto industry, & commercial real estate

  10. Broker Communications Networks, Too! • Two commercial examples in IP networks • Packet Fabric: share routers at exchange points • FON: resells users’ wireless Internet connectivity • FON economic refactoring • Infrastructure providers: Buy upstream connectivity • Service provider: FON as the broker (www.fon.com)

  11. Application #1: End-to-End Services • Secure routing protocols • Multi-provider VPNs • Paths with end-to-end performance guarantees Today Cabo Competing ISPs with different goals must coordinate Single service provider controls end-to-end path

  12. NYC ATL Application #2: Virtual Co-Location • Problem:ISP/Enterprise wants presence in some physical location, but doesn’t have equipment. U.S. Tokyo • Today:Backhaul, or L3 VPN from single ISP • Cabo:Lease a slice of another’s routers, links

  13. Challenge #1: Simultaneous Operation • Problem: Service providers share infrastructure • Approach: Virtualize the infrastructure • Nodes (lessons from PlanetLab will help) • Links (previous lessons from QoS) • Andy Bavier’s talk on VINI • Cabo will exploit many functions that are needed for VINI • Cabo philosophy: virtualization is the architecture

  14. Challenge #2: Substrate • Problem: Service providers must be able to request and create virtual networks • Discovering physical infrastructure • Decision elements for managing the substrate • Creating virtual networks • Requests to decision elements (initially out of band), which name virtual network components • Instantiating virtual networks • Challenges related to embedding and accounting

  15. Conclusion: Cabo as a New Architecture • Virtualization • Multiple logical routers on a single platform • Resource isolation in CPU, FIBs, and bandwidth • Programmability • General-purpose CPUs for control and manipulation • Network processors and FPGAs for fast forwarding • Third-party providers for routing and forwarding solutions • Economic refactoring • Infrastructure provider: manage routers and links • Service provider: offer end-to-end services http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/papers/cabo.pdf

More Related