participatory networking

Participatory NetworkingRodrigo Fonseca

trabalho conjunto com Andrew Ferguson, Arjun Guha, Jordan Place, and Shriram Krishnamurthi

UFMG, 25/5/2012

1

Alguns problemas com o gerenciamento de redes hoje

2

Quatro exemplos

3

Redes residenciais4

TCP Nice: A Mechanism for Background TransfersArun Venkataramani Ravi Kokku Mike Dahlin

Laboratory of Advanced Systems ResearchDepartment of Computer Sciences

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712arun, rkoku, dahlin @cs.utexas.edu

Abstract

Many distributed applications can make use of largebackground transfers transfers of data that humansare not waiting for to improve availability, reliability,latency or consistency. However, given the rapid fluc-tuations of available network bandwidth and changingresource costs due to technology trends, hand tuning theaggressiveness of background transfers risks (1) compli-cating applications, (2) being too aggressive and inter-fering with other applications, and (3) being too timidand not gaining the benefits of background transfers.Our goal is for the operating system to manage networkresources in order to provide a simple abstraction of nearzero-cost background transfers. Our system, TCP Nice,can provably bound the interference inflicted by back-ground flows on foregroundflows in a restricted networkmodel. And our microbenchmarks and case study appli-cations suggest that in practice it interferes little withforeground flows, reaps a large fraction of spare net-work bandwidth, and simplifies application constructionand deployment. For example, in our prefetching casestudy application, aggressive prefetching improves de-mand performance by a factor of three when Nice man-ages resources; but the same prefetching hurts demandperformance by a factor of six under standard networkcongestion control.

1 Introduction

Many distributed applications can make use of largebackground transfers transfers of data that humans arenot waiting for to improve service quality. For exam-ple, a broad range of applications and services such asdata backup [29], prefetching [50], enterprise data dis-tribution [20], Internet content distribution [2], and peer-to-peer storage [16, 43] can trade increased network

This work was supported in part by an NSF CISE grant (CDA-9624082), the Texas Advanced Technology Program, the Texas Ad-vanced Research Program, and Tivoli. Dahlin was also supported byan NSF CAREER award (CCR-9733842) and an Alfred P. Sloan Re-search Fellowship.

bandwidth consumption and possibly disk space for im-proved service latency [15, 18, 26, 32, 38, 50], improvedavailability [11, 53], increased scalability [2], strongerconsistency [53], or support for mobility [28, 41, 47].Many of these services have potentially unlimited band-width demands where incrementally more bandwidthconsumption provides incrementally better service. Forexample, a web prefetching system can improve its hitrate by fetching objects from a virtually unlimited col-lection of objects that have non-zero probability of ac-cess [8, 10] or by updating cached copies more fre-quently as data change [13, 50, 48]; Technology trendssuggest that “wasting” bandwidth and storage to im-prove latency and availability will become increasinglyattractive in the future: per-byte network transport costsand disk storage costs are low and have been improv-ing at 80-100% per year [9, 17, 37]; conversely net-work availability [11, 40, 54] and network latencies im-prove slowly, and long latencies and failures waste hu-man time.

Current operating systems and networks do not providegood support for aggressive background transfers. Inparticular, because background transfers compete withforeground requests, they can hurt overall performanceand availability by increasing network congestion. Ap-plications must therefore carefully balance the benefitsof background transfers against the risk of both self-interference, where applications hurt their own perfor-mance, and cross-interference, where applications hurtother applications’ performance. Often, applications at-tempt to achieve this balance by setting “magic num-bers” (e.g., the prefetch threshold in prefetching algo-rithms [18, 26]) that have little obvious relationship tosystem goals (e.g., availability or latency) or constraints(e.g., current spare network bandwidth).

Our goal is for the operating system to manage net-work resources in order to provide a simple abstrac-tion of zero-cost background transfers. A self-tuningbackground transport layer will enable new classes ofapplications by (1) simplifying applications, (2) reduc-ing the risk of being too aggressive, and (3) making

8

Datacenters:Processamento em larga escala

9

Redes corporativas:Defesa contra ataques

12

Provedores de cloud: VMs não confiáveis

16

17Based on “Delusional Boot: Securing Cloud Hypervisors without Massive Re-Engineering” (EuroSys 2012)

ProductionDatacenter



Serviçode Boot



Serviço de Boot

21

Proposta

ParticipatoryNetworking

23


24

PANE


24

PANE


24

1. Requests

PANE


24

1. Requests 2. Hints

PANE


24

1. Requests 2. Hints3. Queries


25

Seguro?


25

Seguro? Confiável?


25

Seguro? Confiável? Justo?


25


Prático?


25


Prático?


Efficiente?25

28


28


•API para usuários de SDNs

28



•Expõe mecanismos existentes

28



•Expõe mecanismos existentes

•Sem impacto sobre aplicações não modificadas

30

Roteiro

30

Roteiro

1. Semântica de delegação de privilégios

30

Roteiro

1. Semântica de delegação de privilégios2. Esboço do protocolo

30

Roteiro

1. Semântica de delegação de privilégios2. Esboço do protocolo3. Processamento online de flows

30

Roteiro

1. Semântica de delegação de privilégios2. Esboço do protocolo3. Processamento online de flows4. Estado atual

31

Semantica de Delegação de Privilégios

32Shares

32

Shares

33Delegação

33

bandwidth50Mbps

Delegação

33

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth50Mbps

Delegação

33

root

root

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth50Mbps

Delegação

33

root

root adf

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth50Mbps

Delegação

34

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANEContexto Dinâmico

34

PANEReserve 2 Mbpsfrom now to +5min?

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANEYes

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANE

is traffic will be

short and bursty

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANEOK

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANEHow much web trafficin the last hour?

Contexto Dinâmico

34

PANE67,560 bytes

Contexto Dinâmico

35

PANE

Current: 0 Mbps Current: 0 Mbps

Current: 0 Mbps

35

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

Reserve 80 Mbps?

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

Yes

Current: 80 Mbps

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

Rese

rve 5

0 Mbp

s?

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

No

35

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

bandwidth100Mbps

PANE


Current: 0 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

Current: 80 Mbps

36

Esboço do Protocolo

37

PANE

37

PANE

Root

37

PANE

Root

Alice

NewShare A for (user=Alice) [reserve <= 10Mb]

on rootShare.

37

PANE

Root

Alice


on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Root

Alice


on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Grant A to Alice.Root

Alice


on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Grant A to Alice. OKRoot

Alice

reserve(user=Alice,dstPort=80) = 5Mb on Afrom now to +10min.


on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Grant A to Alice. OKRoot

Alice



on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Grant A to Alice. OK


Root

Alice


on rootShare.

37

PANE

OK

Grant A to Alice. OK



Root

Alice

38

PANEreserve(user=Alice,

dstPort=80) = 5Mb on Afrom now to +10min.

Time

Band

width

Reservation Limit

t

38



Time

Band

width

Reservation Limit

t

39



Time

Band

width

Reservation Limit

t

40



Time

Band

width

Reservation LimitU

t

41



42

PANE


NO

Alice

Time

Band

width

Reservation LimitU

t

43


dstPort=80) = 5Mb on Afrom +20min to +30min.

Alice

Time

Band

width

Reservation LimitU

t

44



Alice

Time

Band

width

Reservation LimitDU

t

45



Alice

46

PANE


NO

reserve(user=Alice,dstPort=80) = 5Mb on Afrom +20min to +30min.

OKAlice

47

PANE

47

PANEAlice

47

PANE10.0.0.2

Alice

47

PANE10.0.0.2

Alice

Root

47

NewShare aAC for (dstHost=10.0.0.2) [deny = True]

on rootShare.

PANE10.0.0.2

Alice

Root

47


on rootShare.

PANE

OK

10.0.0.2Alice

Root

47


on rootShare.

PANE

OK

Grant aAC to Alice.

10.0.0.2Alice

Root

47


on rootShare.

PANE

OK

Grant aAC to Alice. OK

10.0.0.2Alice

Root

48

PANE10.0.0.2

Alice

10.0.0.3 Eve

48

PANE10.0.0.2

Alice

10.0.0.3 Eve

48

PANE10.0.0.2

deny(dstHost=10.0.0.2, srcHost=10.0.0.3) on aAC

from now to +5min.

Alice

10.0.0.3 Eve

48

PANE10.0.0.2

deny(dstHost=10.0.0.2, srcHost=10.0.0.3) on aAC

from now to +5min.

OK

Alice

49

Processamento dinâmico de fluxos

Hierarquia de Políticas50


(dstPort = 22, Deny)

(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)

(dstPort=80, GMB=10) (srcIP=10.0.0.1, Allow)



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

Hierarchical Flow Table (HFT)51


(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

GMB=10



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?+S



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?+S0 +P



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?+S

GMB=10

0 +P



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?+S

GMB=10GMB=30

0 +P



(dstIP=10.0.0.2, GMB=30)


Packet:src 10.0.0.1

dst 10.0.0.2:80

AllowGMB=10?+S

GMB=10GMB=30

0 +P

GMB=30

Operadores HFT52

+D

+P

+S Sibling

Parent-Sibling

In node

Asso

ciat

ivo,

0 é

iden

tidad

e

Com

mut

ativo

Requerimentos

Operadores HFT52

+D

+P

+S Sibling

Parent-Sibling

In node

Asso

ciat

ivo,

0 é

iden

tidad

e

Com

mut

ativo

Requerimentos Em PANE

D e S idênticos. Deny domina Allow.

GMB combina como max

Filho domina Paipara Controle de Acesso

GMB combina como max

Há mais um probleminha...53

54

Switches não implementam árvores !

55

Estado Atual

56

✓

56

Todos esses componentes implementadoscom Controle de Acesso and GMB

✓

Código: https://github.com/brownsys/pane

57

https://github.com/brownsys/pane

https://github.com/brownsys/pane

Andrew D. Ferguson, Arjun Guha, Jordan Place, Rodrigo Fonseca, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. “Participatory Networking”. Hot-ICE, April 2012.

Andrew D. Ferguson, Arjun Guha, Chen Liang, Rodrigo Fonseca, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. “Hierarchical Policies for Software Defined Networks”. To appear, Hot-SDN, August 2012.

59

Avaliação Preliminiar60

Protegendo Zookeeper61

Protegendo Zookeeper61

5 servidores Zookeper com PANE1 cliente

Conectados via 1 OpenVSwitch (3.3Gbps)iPerf gerando carga em todos os links

Denial-of-service63

Denial-of-service63

24Mbps

Denial-of-service63

Denial-of-service63

5Mbps

Denial-of-service63

Denial-of-service63

8Mbps

Denial-of-service63

24Mbps

Próximos Passos64

Próximos Passos64

Implementar mais operadores

Próximos Passos64

Implementar mais operadoresGarantia de Latência, Limite de Taxa, Propriedades de Caminhos

Próximos Passos64


Hints

Próximos Passos64


HintsQueries

Próximos Passos64


HintsQueries

Sua aplicação?

Próximos Passos64


HintsQueries

Sua aplicação?Criar um mercado

Próximos Passos64


HintsQueries

Sua aplicação?Criar um mercado

Escalabilidade

65

Conclusion

65

Conclusion

Informações do usuário podem trazer grandes benefícios para configuração de redes

PANE é nosso primeiro passo para alcançar essa visão

Perguntas?66

Rodrigo [email protected]

Andrew [email protected]

Arjun [email protected]

Shriram [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

participatory networking

Documents