Flow based routing and openflow

问题:

This may not be the typical stackoverflow question.

A colleague of mine has been speculating that flow-based routing is going to be the next big thing in networking. Openflow provides the technology to use low cost switches in large application, IT data-centers, etc; replacing Cisco, HP, etc switch and routers. The theory is that you can create a hierarchy these openflow switches with simple configuration, eg. no spanning tree. Open flow will route each flow to the appropriate switch/switch-port, using only the knowledge of the hierarchy of switches (no routers). The solution is suppose to save enterprises money and simplify networking.

Q. He is speculating that this may dramatically change enterprise networking. For many reasons, I am skeptical. I would like to hear your thoughts.

回答1:

In order to assess the future of flow-based networking and OpenFlow, here’s the way to think about it.

1. It starts with the silicon trends: Moore’s Law (2X transistors per 18-24 months), and a correlated but slower improvement in the I/O bandwidth available on a single chip (roughly 2X every 30-36 months). You can now buy full-featured 10GbE single chip switches with 64 ports, and chips which have a mix of 40GbE and 10GbE ports with comparable total I/O bandwidth.

2. There are a variety of ways physically connect these in a mesh (ignoring the loop-free constraints of spanning tree and the way Ethernet learns MAC addresses). In the high performance computing (HPC) world, a lot of work has been done building clusters with InfiniBand and other protocols using meshes of small switches to network the compute servers. This is now being applied to Ethernet meshes. The geometry of a CLOS or fat-tree topology enables a two stage mesh with a large number of ports. The math is thus: Where n is the # of ports per chip, the number of devices you can connect in a two-stage mesh is (n*2)/2, and the number you can connect in a three-stage mesh is (n*3)/4. While with standard spanning tree and learning, the spanning tree protocol will disable the multi-path links to the second stage, most of the Ethernet switch vendors have some sort of multi-chassis Link Aggregation protocol which gets around the multi-pathing limitation. There is also standards work in this area. Although it might not be obvious, the vast majority of Link Aggregation schemes allocate traffic so all the frames of any given flow take the same path. This is done in order to minimize out-of-order frames so they don’t get dropped by some higher level protocol. They could have chosen to call this “flow based multiplexing” but instead they call it “link aggregation”.

3. Although the devil is in the details, there are a variety of data center operators and vendors that have concluded they don’t need to have large multi-slot chassis switches in the aggregation/core layer for server connect, instead using meshes of inexpensive 1U or 2U switches.
4. People have also concluded that eventually you need some kind of management station to set up the configuration of all the switches. Again, drawing from the experience with HPC and InfiniBand, they use what is called an InfiniBand Controller. In the telecom world, most telecom networks have evolved to separate the management and part of the control plane from the boxes that carry the data traffic.

Summarizing the points above, meshes of Ethernet switches with an external management plane with multipath traffic where flows are kept in order is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and is likely to become mainstream. At least one major company, Juniper, has made a big public statement about their endorsement of this approach. I'd call all of these "flow-based routing".

Juniper and other vendors’ proprietary approaches notwithstanding, this is an area that cries out for standards. The Open Networking Foundation (ONF), was founded to promote standards in this area, starting with OpenFlow. Within a couple of months, the sixty+ members of ONF will be celebrating their first year anniversary. Each member has, I am led to believe, paid tens of thousands of dollars to join. While the OpenFlow protocol has a ways to go before it is widely adopted, it has real momentum.

回答2:

OpenFlow is a research project from Stanford University led by professor Nick McKeown. In the original OpenFlow research paper, the goal of OpenFlow was to give researchers a way "to run experimental protocols in the networks they use every day." For years networking researchers have had an almost impossible task deploying and evaluating their ideas on real networks with real Ethernet switches and IP routers. The difficultly is that real switches and routers from companies like Cisco, HP, and others, are all closed, proprietary boxes that implement standard "protocols", like Ethernet spanning tree, and OSPF. There are business reasons why Cisco and HP won't let you run software on their switches and routers; there is no technical reason. OpenFlow was invented to solve a people problem: if Cisco is not willing to let you run code on their switch, maybe they can at least provide a very narrow interface to let you remotely configure their switch, and that narrow interface is called OpenFlow.

To my knowledge more than a dozen companies are currently implementing OpenFlow support for their switches. Some like HP are only providing the OpenFlow software for research purposes. Others like NEC are actually offering commercial support.

For academic researchers that want to evaluate new routing protocols in real networks, OpenFlow is a huge win. For switch vendors, it is less clear if OpenFlow support will help, hurt, or have no effect in the long run. After all, the academic research market is very small.

The reason why OpenFlow is most often discussed in the context of enterprise networks is that OpenFlow grew out of a previous research project called Ethane that used OpenFlow's mechanism of remotely programming switches in an enterprise network in order to centralize a security policy. Ethane, and by extension OpenFlow, has led directly to two startup companies: Nicira, founded by Martin Casado, and Big Switch Networks, founded by Guido Appenzeller. It would be easier to implement an Ethane-like system if all of the switches in the network supported OpenFlow.

Closely related to enterprise networks are data center networks, the networks that interconnect thousands to tens of thousands of servers in companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon.com, and Yahoo!. One problem with Ethernet is that it does not scale to this many servers on the same Layer 2 network. We attempted to solve this problem in a research project called PortLand. We used OpenFlow to facilitate programming the switches from a central controller, which we called a Fabric Manager. We released the PortLand source code as open source.

However, we also found a limitation to OpenFlow's functionality. In another data center networking research project called Helios, we were not able to use OpenFlow because it did not provide a mechanism for bonding multiple switch ports into a Link Aggregation Group (LAG). Presumably one could extend the OpenFlow specification indefinitely until it all possible switch features become exposed.

There are other networks as well such as the Internet access networks, Internet backbones, home networks, wireless networks, cellular networks, etc. Researchers are trying to see where OpenFlow fits into all of these markets. What it really comes down to is the question, "what problem does OpenFlow solve?" Ethane makes a case for enterprise networks but I have not yet seen a compelling case for any other type of network. OpenFlow might be the next big thing, or it might end up being a case of "don't solve a people problem with a technical solution."

回答3:

@Nathan: OpenFlow 1.1 actually adds some primitives that enable the use of multiple links via the Multipath Proposal.

回答4:

An excellent view of OpenFlow by Simon Crosby

http://community.citrix.com/display/ocb/2011/03/21/The+Rise+of+the+Software+Defined+Network

回答5:

More context on SDN which discusses IETF's SDN initiative and ONF's Openflow. Working in conjuction is a powerful combination http://bit.ly/A8xYso

回答6:

Nathan, Excellent historical account and overview of openflow. Thanks!

You've hit on the points that I've been wrapping my head around as to why Openflow might not be widely adopted. Since it was designed to be open to allow researcher the ability to run experimental protocols and not necessarily be "compatible with" the big players Cisco/HP/etc. it puts itself into niche (although potentially big) market, more on this later. And as you've stated it's recieved some adoption in the "cloud data centers (CDC)" e.g. google, facebook, etc because they need to exploit experimental protocols to gain a competitive advantage or optimize for their application.

As you've stated some switch vendors have added openflow capability to capitalize on the niche need in academia and potentially sell into the CDC; google, facebook. This is potentially a big market (or bubble if you're pessimistic).

The problem that I see is that the majority of the market (80% or more) is enterprise IT data centers. The requirements here is for stable, compatible networking. Open and less expensive would be nice, but not at the cost of the former.

One could think of a day where corporate IT is partially or completely cloud-sourced where QoS is maintained by the cloud provider. In this case, experimental protocols could be leveraged to provide a competitive advantaged for speed or QoS. In which case; openflow could play a more dominant roll. I personally think this scenario is many years off.

So, the conclusion I come to is that other than in research and perhaps CDCs (google, facebook), the market is pretty small. I suppose that if researchers use openflow to come up with a better protocol for say link aggregation, or congestion management, then eventually Cisco and HP will provide those in their standard offering because their customers will demand it. So openflow could be a market influencer (via the research community), but it would not be a market disruptor.

Do you agree with my conclusions? Thanks for your input.