Witnessing Network Transformations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10548)

Abstract

Software-defined networking (SDN) is transforming the way networks are managed, as fixed distributed protocols give way to flexible route calculation software. The shift brings to the forefront the issue of software errors, which may produce wrong routes, and cause significant network disruption. We propose a run-time certification mechanism that rejects any wrongly calculated route before it is installed in the network. Certification is done through a strategy called witnessing, where a witness (i.e., a justification) is generated by the software for each routing decision. The witness provided for a route change is validated against the original user request, using a formal network model, before the change is installed on the real network. Witnessing shifts trust away from the complex system software to a relatively simple witness checker. We define a formal language to specify connection-based user requests (“intents”), witnesses for each type of intent, and the checking algorithm. We also formulate a notion of refinement between networks, and show that it preserves the realizability of intents across abstraction levels.

References

  1. 1.
    ONOS: Open Network Operating System. http://onosproject.org/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    RFC 6241 - Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241
  4. 4.
    Alur, R., Yannakakis, M.: Model checking of hierarchical state machines. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 23(3), 273–303 (2001). doi:10.1145/503502.503503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, C.J., Foster, N., Guha, A., Jeannin, J., Kozen, D., Schlesinger, C., Walker, D.: NetKAT: semantic foundations for networks. In: Jagannathan, S., Sewell, P. (eds.) The 41st Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2014, San Diego, CA, USA, January 20–21, 2014, pp. 113–126. ACM (2014). doi:10.1145/2535838.2535862
  6. 6.
    Canini, M., Venzano, D., Peresíni, P., Kostic, D., Rexford, J.: A NICE way to test openflow applications. In: Gribble and Katabi [11], pp. 127–140. https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/technical-sessions/presentation/canini
  7. 7.
    Deng, C., Namjoshi, K.S.: Witnessing network transformations (2017). Extended version of this paper, at http://cs.nyu.edu/~deng/
  8. 8.
    Fagin, R.: Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In: Karp, R. (ed.) Complexity of Computation, SIAM-AMS Proc., pp. 27–41 (1974)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feamster, N., Rexford, J., Zegura, E.W.: The road to SDN: an intellectual history of programmable networks. Comput. Commun. Rev. 44(2), 87–98 (2014). doi:10.1145/2602204.2602219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortune, S.: Equivalence and generalization in a layered network model. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 81(8), 1698–1714 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2015.06.004 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gribble, S.D., Katabi, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 2012, San Jose, CA, USA, April 25–27, 2012. USENIX Association (2012). https://www.usenix.org/publications/proceedings/?f[0]=im_group_audience%3A279
  12. 12.
    Guha, A., Reitblatt, M., Foster, N.: Machine-verified network controllers. In: Boehm, H., Flanagan, C. (eds.) ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2013, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16–19, 2013, pp. 483–494. ACM (2013). doi:10.1145/2462156.2462178
  13. 13.
    Kang, N., Liu, Z., Rexford, J., Walker, D.: Optimizing the “one big switch” abstraction in software-defined networks. In: Almeroth, K.C., Mathy, L., Papagiannaki, K., Misra, V. (eds.) Conference on emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, CoNEXT 2013, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, December 9–12, 2013, pp. 13–24. ACM (2013). doi:10.1145/2535372.2535373
  14. 14.
    Kazemian, P., Varghese, G., McKeown, N.: Header space analysis: static checking for networks. In: Gribble and Katabi[11], pp. 113–126. https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi12/technical-sessions/presentation/kazemian
  15. 15.
    Khurshid, A., Zou, X., Zhou, W., Caesar, M., Godfrey, P.B.: Veriflow: Verifying network-wide invariants in real time. In: Feamster, N., Mogul, J.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 2013, Lombard, IL, USA, April 2–5, 2013, pp. 15–27. USENIX Association (2013). https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi13/technical-sessions/presentation/khurshid
  16. 16.
    Lopes, N.P., Bjørner, N., Godefroid, P., Jayaraman, K., Varghese, G.: Checking beliefs in dynamic networks. In: 12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, NSDI 15, Oakland, CA, USA, May 4–6, 2015, pp. 499–512. USENIX Association (2015). https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi15/technical-sessions/presentation/lopes
  17. 17.
    Mai, H., Khurshid, A., Agarwal, R., Caesar, M., Godfrey, B., King, S.T.: Debugging the data plane with Anteater. In: Keshav, S., Liebeherr, J., Byers, J.W., Mogul, J.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2011 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, Toronto, ON, Canada, August 15–19, 2011, pp. 290–301. ACM (2011). doi:10.1145/2018436.2018470
  18. 18.
    McKeown, N., Anderson, T., Balakrishnan, H., Parulkar, G.M., Peterson, L.L., Rexford, J., Shenker, S., Turner, J.S.: Openflow: enabling innovation in campus networks. Comput. Commun. Rev. 38(2), 69–74 (2008). doi:10.1145/1355734.1355746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Namjoshi, K.S., Zuck, L.D.: Witnessing program transformations. In: Logozzo, F., Fähndrich, M. (eds.) SAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7935, pp. 304–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38856-9_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Necula, G.: Translation validation of an optimizing compiler. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles of Programming Languages Design and Implementation (PLDI) 2000, pp. 83–95 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Necula, G., Lee, P.: Safe kernel extensions without run-time checking. In: OSDI (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pnueli, A., Shtrichman, O., Siegel, M.: The code validation tool (CVT) - automatic verification of a compilation process. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 2(2), 192–201 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rinard, M.C., Marinov, D.: Credible compilation with pointers. In: FLoC Workshop on Run-Time Result Verification (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shenker, S., Casado, M., Koponen, T., McKeown, N.: The future of networking and the past of protocols. Open Networking Summit (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simsarian, J.E., Choi, N., Kim, Y.J., Fortune, S., Thottan, M.K.: Netgraph data model applied to multilayer carrier networks. In: OFC (2016). doi:10.1364/OFC.2016.Th4G.2
  26. 26.
    Smolka, S., Eliopoulos, S.A., Foster, N., Guha, A.: A fast compiler for netkat. In: Fisher, K., Reppy, J.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2015, Vancouver, BC, Canada, September 1–3, 2015, pp. 328–341. ACM (2015). doi:10.1145/2784731.2784761
  27. 27.
    Zuck, L.D., Pnueli, A., Goldberg, B.: VOC: a methodology for the translation validation of optimizing compilers. J. UCS 9(3), 223–247 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Bell LaboratoriesNokiaMurray HillUSA

Personalised recommendations