Flexible, Dynamic, and Scalable Service Composition for Active Routers

  • Stefan Schmid
  • Tim Chart
  • Manolis Sifalakis
  • Andrew C. Scott
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2546)


This paper describes a novel model for the provision of service composites for active routers. The service composition framework enables flexible programmability of the router’s data path through dynamically loadable software components, called ‘active components’. The composition model promotes transparent and dynamic creation of network-side services and allows independent users to partake in this process. A prototype implementation has revealed that the composition model using packet filters and a classification graph structure as a means to integrate active components into the forwarding path enables the dynamic alteration of the elements of a composite at run-time and permits scalability in the generation of such composites. Furthermore, it allows the flexible provision of a unique service profile for each packet passing through an active router. We show that the overhead of this composition model does not significantly affect the performance of the router.


Service Composition Service Composite Composition Model Flow Filter Classification Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    R. Cardoe, et al., “LARA: A Prototype System for Supporting High Performance Active Networking”, In Proc. of IWAN 99, June 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Decasper, Z. Dittia, G. Parulkar, B. Plattner, “Router Plug-ins: A Software Architecture for Next Generation Routers”, In Proc. of SIGCOMM, pages 229–240, September, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.UJ. Wetherall, J.V. Guttag and D.L. Tennenhouse, “ANTS: A Toolkit for Building and Dynamically Deploying Network Protocols”, In Proc. of OPENARCH, April 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.W. Hicks and J.T. Moore and D.S. Alexander and C.A. Gunter and S. Nettles, “PLANet: An Active Internetwork”, In Proc. of IEEE INFOCOM (3), 1124–1133, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Schwartz et al., “Smart Packets for Active Networks” In Proc. of OPENARCH, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Schmid, J. Finney, A.C. Scott, W.D. Shepherd, “Component-based Active Network Architecture”, In Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, July 2001.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Egevang et al., “The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)”, RFC 1631, May 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Merugu et al., “Bowman and CANEs: Implementation of an Active Network”, In Proc. of 37th Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, September 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Yemini and S. da Silva, “Towards Programmable Networks”, In Proc. of IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems Operations and Management, October 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.W. Hicks and S. Nettles, “Active Networking Means Evolution (or Enhanced Extensibility Required)”, In Proc. of IWAN 2000, October 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Montz et Al., “Scout: A Communications-Oriented Operating System”, In Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pages 200, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Morris, E. Kohler, J. Jannotti, M Kaashoek, “The Click Modular Router”, In Proc. of ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 217–231, December 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Schmid
    • 1
  • Tim Chart
    • 1
  • Manolis Sifalakis
    • 1
  • Andrew C. Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.Distributed Multimedia Research Group Computing DepartmentLancaster UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations