[This post was written with Bruce Davie]
Network virtualization has been around in some form or other for many years, but it seems of late to be getting more attention than ever. This is especially true in SDN circles, where we frequently hear of network virtualization as one of the dominant use cases of SDN. Unfortunately, as with much of SDN, the discussion has been muddled, and network virtualization is being both conflated with SDN and described as a direct result of it. However, SDN is definitely not network virtualization. And network virtualization does not require SDN.
No doubt, part of the problem is that there is no broad consensus on what network virtualization is. So this post is an attempt to construct a reasonable working definition of network virtualization. In particular, we want to distinguish network virtualization from some related technologies with which it is sometimes confused, and explain how it relates to SDN.
A good place to start is to take a step back and look at how virtualization has been defined in computing. Historically, virtualization of computational resources such as CPU and memory has allowed programmers (and applications) to be freed from the limitations of physical resources. Virtual memory, for example, allows an application to operate under the illusion that it has dedicated access to a vast amount of contiguous memory, even when the physical reality is that the memory is limited, partitioned over multiple banks, and shared with other applications. From the application’s perspective, the abstraction of virtual memory is almost indistinguishable from that provided by physical memory, supporting the same address structure and memory operations.
As another example, server virtualization presents the abstraction of a virtual machine, preserving all the details of a physical machine: CPU cycles, instruction set, I/O, etc.
A key point here is that virtualization of computing hardware preserves the abstractions that were presented by the resources being virtualized. Why is this important? Because changing abstractions generally means changing the programs that want to use the virtualized resources. Server virtualization was immediately useful because existing operating systems could be run on top of the hypervisor without modification. Memory virtualization was immediately useful because the programming model did not have to change.
Virtualization and the Power of New Abstractions
Virtualization should not change the basic abstractions exposed to workloads, however it nevertheless does introduce new abstractions. These new abstractions represent the logical enclosure of the entity being virtualized (for example a process, a logical volume, or a virtual machine). It is in these new abstractions that the real power of virtualization can be found.
So while the most immediate benefit of virtualization is the ability to multiplex hardware between multiple workloads (generally for the efficiency, fault containment or security), the longer term impact comes from the ability of the new abstractions to change the operational paradigm.
Server virtualization provides the most accessible example of this. The early value proposition of hypervisor products was simply server consolidation. However, the big disruption that followed server virtualization was not consolidation but the fundamental change to the operational model created by the introduction of the VM as a basic unit of operations.
This is a crucial point. When virtualizing some set of hardware resources, a new abstraction is introduced, and it will become a basic unit of operation. If that unit is too fine grained (e.g. just exposing logical CPUs) the impact on the operational model will be limited. Get it right, however, and the impact can be substantial.
As it turns out, the virtual machine was the right level of abstraction to dramatically impact data center operations. VMs embody a fairly complete target for the things operational staff want to do with servers: provisioning new workloads, moving workloads, snapshotting workloads, rolling workloads back in time, etc.
- virtualization exposes a logical view of some resource decoupled from the physical substrate without changing the basic abstractions.
- virtualization also introduces new abstractions – the logical container of virtualized resources.
- it is the manipulation of these new abstractions that has the potential to change the operational paradigm.
- the suitability of the new abstraction for simplifying operations is important.
Given this as background, let’s turn to network virtualization.
Network Virtualization, Then and Now
As noted above, network virtualization is an extremely broad and overloaded term that has been in use for decades. Overlays, MPLS, VPNs, VLANs, LISP, Virtual routers, VRFs can all be thought of as network virtualization of some form. An earlier blog post by Bruce Davie (here) touched on the relationship between these concepts and network virtualization as we’re defining it here. The key point of that post is that when employing one of the aforementioned network virtualization primitives, we’re virtualizing some aspect of the network (a LAN segment, an L3 path, an L3 forwarding table, etc.) but rarely a network in its entirety with all its properties.
For example, if you use VLANs to virtualize an L2 segment, you don’t get virtualized counters that stay in sync when a VM moves, or a virtual ACL that keeps working wherever the VM is located. For those sorts of capabilities, you need some other mechanisms.
To put it in the context of the previous discussion, traditional network virtualization mechanisms don’t provide the most suitable operational abstractions. For example, provisioning new workloads or moving workloads still requires operational overhead to update the network state, and this is generally a manual process.
Modern approaches to network virtualization try and address this disconnect. Rather than providing a bunch of virtualized components, network virtualization today tries to provide a suitable basic unit of operations. Unsurprisingly, the abstraction is of a “virtual network”.
To be complete, a virtual network should both support the basic abstractions provided by physical networks today (L2, L3, tagging, counters, ACLs, etc.) as well as introduce a logical abstraction that encompasses all of these to be used as the basis for operation.
And just like the compute analog, this logical abstraction should support all of the operational niceties we’ve come to expect from virtualization: dynamic creation, deletion, migration, configuration, snapshotting, and roll-back.
Cleaning up the Definition of Network Virtualization
Given the previous discussion, we would characterize network virtualization as follows:
- Introduces the concept of a virtual network that is decoupled from the physical network.
- The virtual networks don’t change any of the basic abstractions found in physical networks.
- The virtual networks are exposed as a new logical abstraction that can form a basic unit of operation (creation, deletion, migration, dynamic service insertion, snapshotting, inspection, and so on).
Network Virtualization is not SDN
SDN is a mechanism, and network virtualization is a solution. It is quite possible to have network virtualization solution that doesn’t use SDN, and to use SDN to build a network that has no virtualized properties.
SDN provides network virtualization in about the same way Python does – it’s a tool (and not a mandatory one). That said, SDN does have something to offer as a mechanism for network virtualization.
A simple way to think about the problem of network virtualization is that the solution must map multiple logical abstractions onto the physical network, and keep those abstractions consistent as both the logical and physical worlds change. Since these logical abstractions may reside anywhere in the network, this becomes a fairly complicated state management problem that must be enforced network-wide.
However, managing large amounts of states with reasonable consistency guarantees is something that SDN is particularly good at. It is no coincidence that most of the network virtualization solutions out there (from a variety of vendors using a variety of approaches) have a logically centralized component of some form for state management.
The point of this post was simply to provide some scaffolding around the discussion of network virtualization. To summarize quickly, modern concepts of network virtualization both preserve traditional abstractions and provide a basic unit of operations which is a (complete) virtual network. And that new abstraction should support the same operational abstractions as its computational analog.
While SDN provides a useful approach to building a network virtualization solution, it isn’t the only way. And lets not confuse tools with solutions.
Over the next few years, we expect to see a variety of mechanisms for implementing virtual networking take hold. Some hardware-based, some software-based, some using tunnels, others using tags, some relying more on traditional distributed protocols, others relying on SDN.
In the end, the market will choose the winning mechanism(s). In the meantime, let’s make sure we clarify the dialog so that informed decisions are possible.
On a lark, I compiled a list of “open” OpenFlow software projects that I knew about off-hand, or could find with minimal effort searching online.
You can find the list here.
Unsurprisingly, most of the projects either come directly from or originated at academia or industry research. As I’ve argued before, with respect to standardization, the more design and insight that comes from real code and plugging real holes, the better. And it is still very, very early days in the SDN engineering cycle. So, it is nice to see the diversity in projects and I hope the ecosystem continues to broaden with more controllers and associated projects entering the fray.
If you know of a project that I’ve missed (I’m only listing those that have code or bits available for free online — with the exception of Pica8 which will send you code on request) please mention it in the comments or e-mail me and I’ll add it to the list.
[This post was written with Bruce Davie, and Andrew Lambeth.]
Recently, Jesse Gross, Bruce Davie and a number of contributors submitted the STT draft to the IETF (link to the draft here). STT is an encapsulation format for network virtualization. Unlike other protocols in this space (namely VXLAN and NVGRE), it was designed to be used with soft switching within the server (generally in the vswitch in the hypervisor) while taking advantage of hardware acceleration at the NIC. The goal is to preserve the flexibility and development speed of software while still providing hardware forwarding speeds.
The quick list of differentiators are i) it takes advantage of TSO available in NICs today allowing tunneling from software at 10G while consuming relatively little cpu ii) there are more bits allocated to the virtual network meta data carried per packet, and those bits are unstructured allowing for arbitrary interpretation by software and iii) the control plane is decoupled from the actual encapsulation.
There are a number of other software-centric features like better byte alignment of the headers, but these are not architecturally significant.
Of course, the publication of the draft drew reasonable skepticism on whether the industry needed yet another encapsulation format. And that is the question we will focus on in this post.
But first, let us try to provide a useful decomposition of the virtual networking problem (as it pertains to Distributed Edge Overlays DEO).
Distributed Edge Overlays (DEO)
Distributed edge overlays have gained a lot of traction as a mechanism for network virtualization. A reasonable characterization of the problem space can be found in the IETF nvo3 problem statement draft. Two recent DEO related drafts submitted to the IETF in addition to STT are NVGRE, and VXLAN.
The basic idea is to use tunneling (generally L2 in L3) to create an overlay network from the edge that exposes a virtual view of one or more network to end hosts. The edge may be, for example, a vswitch in the hypervisor, or the first hop physical switch.
DEO solutions can be roughly decomposed into three independent components.
- Encapsulation format:The encapsulation format is what the packet looks like on the wire. The format has implications both on hardware compatibility, and the amount of information that is carried across the tunnel with the packet.As an example of encapsulation, with NVGRE the encapsulation format is GRE where the GRE key is used to store some additional information (the tenant network ID).
- Control plane:The control plane disseminates the state needed to figure out which tunnels to create, which packets go in which tunnels, and what state is associated with packets as they traverse the tunnels. Changes to both the physical and virtual views of the network often require state to be updated and/or moved around the network.There are many ways to implement a control plane, either using traditional protocols (for example, NVGRE and the first VXLAN draft abdicate a lot of control responsibility to multicast), or something more SDN-esque like a centralized datastore, or even a proper SDN controller.
- Logical view:The logical view is what the “virtual network” looks like from the perspective of an end host. In the case of VXLAN and NVGRE, they offer a basic L2 learning domain. However, you can imagine this being extended to L3 (to support very large virtual networks, for example), security policies, and even higher-level services.The logical view defines the network services available to the virtual machine. For example, if only L2 is available, it may not be practical to run workloads of thousands of machines within a single virtual network due to scaling limitations of broadcast. If the virtual network provided L3, it could potentially host such workloads and still provide the benefits of virtualization such as support for VM mobility without requiring IP renumbering, higher-level service interposition (like adding firewalls), and mobile policies.
Before we jump into a justification for STT, we would like to make the point that each of these components really are logically distinct, and a good design should keep them decoupled. Why? For modularity. For example, if a particular encapsulation format has broad hardware support, it would be a shame to restrict it to a single control plane design. It would also be a shame to restrict it to a particular logical network view.
VXLAN and NVGRE or both guilty of this to some extent. For example, the NVGRE and the original VXLAN draft specify multicast as the mechanism to use for part of the control plane (with other parts left unspecified). The latest VXLAN addresses this somewhat, which is a great improvement.
Also, both VXLAN and NVGRE fix the logical forwarding model to L2 going as far as to specify how the logical forwarding tables get populated. Again, this is an unnecessary restriction.
For protocols that are hardware centric (which both VXLAN and NVGRE appear to me), this makes some modicum of sense, lookup space is expensive, and decoupling may require an extra level of indirection. However, for software this is simply bad design.
STT on the other hand limits its focus to the encapsulation format, and does not constrain the other components within the specification.
[Note: The point of this post is not to denigrate VXLAN or NVGRE, but rather to point out that they are comparatively less suited for running within the vswitch. If the full encap/decap and lookup logic is resides fully within hardware, VXLAN and NVGRE are both well designed and reasonable options.]
OK, on to a more detailed justification for STT
To structure the discussion, we’ll step through each logical component of the DEO architecture and describe the design decisions made by STT and how they compare to similar proposals.
Logical view: It turns out that the more information you can tack on to a packet as it transits the network, the richer a logical view you can create. Both NVGRE and VXLAN not only limit the additional information to 32 bits, but they also specify that those bits must contain the logical network ID. This leaves no additional space for specifying other aspects of the logical view that might be interesting to the control plane.
STT differs from NVGRE and VXLAN in two ways. First, it allocates more space to the per-packet metadata. Second, it doesn’t specify how that field is interpreted. This allows the virtual network control plane to use it for state versioning (useful for consistency across multiple switches), additional logical network meta-data, tenant identification, etc.
Of course, having a structured field of limited size makes a lot of sense for NVGRE and VXLAN where it is assumed that encap/decap and interpretation of those bits are likely to be in switching hardware.
However, STT is optimizing for soft switching with hardware accelerating in the NIC. Having larger, unstructured fields provides more flexibility for the software to work with. And, as I’ll describe below, it doesn’t obviate the ability to use hardware acceleration in the NIC to get vastly better performance than a pure software approach.
Control Plane: The STT draft says nothing about the control plane that is used for managing the tunnels and the lookup state feeding into them. This means that securing the control channel, state dissemination, packet replication, etc. are outside of, and thus not constrained by, the spec.
Encapsulation format: This is were STT really shines. STT was designed to take advantage of TSO and LRO engines in existing NICs today. With STT, it is possible to tunnel at 10G from the guest while consuming only a fraction of a CPU core. We’ve seen speedups up to 10x over pure software tunneling.
In other words, STT was designed to let you retain all the high performance features of the NIC when you start tunneling from the edge, while still retaining the flexibility of software to perform the network virtualization functions.
Here is how it works.
When a guest VM sends a packet to the wire, the transitions between the guest and the hypervisor (this is a software domain crossing which requires flushing the TLB, and likely the loss of cache locality, etc.) and the hypervisor and the NIC are relatively expensive. This is why hypervisor vendors take pains to always support TSO all the way up to the guest
Without tunneling, vswitches can take advantage of TSO by exposing a TSO enabled NIC to the guest and then passing large TCP frames to the hardware NIC which performs the segmentation. However, when tunneling is involved, this isn’t possible unless the NIC supports segmentation of the TCP frame within the tunnel in hardware (which hopefully will happen as tunneling protocols get adopted).
With STT, the guests are also exposed to a TSO enabled NIC, however instead of passing the packets directly to the NIC, the vswitch inserts an additional header that looks like a TCP packet, and performs all of the additional network virtualization procedures.
As a result, with STT, the guest ends up sending and receiving massive frames to the hypervisor (up to 64k) which are then encapsulated in software, and ultimately segmented in hardware by the NIC. The result is that the number of domain crossings are reduced by a significant factor in the case of high-throughput TCP flows.
One alternative to going through all this trouble to amortize the guest/hypervisor transistions is to try eliminating them altogether by exposing the NIC HW to the guest, with a technique commonly referred to as passthrough. However, with passthrough software is unable to make any forwarding decisions on the packet before it is sent to the NIC. Passthrough creates a number of problems by exposing the physical NIC to the guest which obviates many of the advantages of NIC virtualization (we describe these shortcomings at length here).
For modern NICs that support TSO and LRO, the only additional overhead that STT provides over sending a raw L2 frame is the memcpy() of the header for encap/decap, and the transmission cost of those additional bytes.
It’s worth pointing out that even if reassembly on the receive side is done in software (which is the case with some NICs), the interrupt coalescing between the hypervisor and the guest is still a significant performance win.
How does this compare to other tunneling proposals? The most significant difference is that NICs don’t support the tunneling protocols today, so they have to be implemented in software which results in a relatively significant performance hit. Eventually NICs will support multiple tunneling protocols, and hopefully they will also support the same stateless (on the send side) TCP segmentation offloading. However, this is unlikely to happen with LOM for awhile.
As a final point, much of STT was designed for efficient processing in software. It contains redundant fields in the header for more efficient lookup and padding to improve byte-alignment on 32-bit boundaries.
So, What’s Not to Like?
STT in it’s current form is a practical hack (more or less). Admittedly, it follows more of a “systems” than a networking aesthetic. More focus was put on practicality, performance, and software processing, than being parsimonious with lookup bits in the header.
As a result, there are definitely some blemishes. For example, because it uses a valid TCP header, but doesn’t have an associated TCP state machine, middleboxes that don’t do full TCP termination are likely to get confused (although it is a little difficult for us to see this as a real shortcoming given all of the other problems passive middleboxes have correctly reconstructing end state). Also, there is currently no simple way to distinguish it from standard TCP traffic (again, a problem for middleboxes). Of course, the opacity of tunnels to middleboxes is nothing new, but these are generally fair criticisms.
In the end, our guess is that abusing existing TSO and LRO engines will not ingratiate STT with traditional networking wonks any time soon … :)
However, we believe that outside of the contortions needed to be compatible with existing TSO/LRO engines, STT has a suitable design for software based tunneling with hardware offload. Because the protocol does not over-specify the broader system in which the tunnel will sit, as the hardware ecosystem evolves, it should be possible to also evolve the protocol fields themselves (like getting rid of using an actual TCP header and setting the outer IP protocol to 6) without having to rewrite the control plane logic too.
Ultimately, we think there is room for a tunneling protocol that provides the benefits of STT, namely the ability to do processing in software with minimal hardware offload for send and receive segmentation. As long as there is compatible hardware, the particulars or the protocol header are less important. After all, it’s only (mostly) software.
[This post was written with Andrew Lambeth]
Our last post “Networking Doesn’t Need a VMware” made the point that drawing a simple analogy between server and network virtualization can steer the technical discourse on network virtualization in the wrong direction. The sentiment comes from the many partner, analyst, and media meetings we’ve been involved in that persistently focus on relatively uninteresting areas of the network virtualization space, specifically, details of encapsulation formats and lookup pipelines.
In this series of writeups, we take a deeper look and discuss some areas in which network
virtualization would do well to emulate server virtualization. This is a fairly broad topic so we’ll break it up across a couple of posts.
In this part, we’ll focus on address space virtualization.
Quick heads up that the length of this post got a little bit out of hand. For those who don’t have the time/patience/inclination/attention span, the synopsis is as follows:
One of the key strengths of a hypervisor lies in its insertion of a completely new address space below the guest OS’s view of what it believes to be the physical address space. And while there are several possible ways to interpose on network address space to achieve some form of virtualization, encapsulation provides the closest analog to the hierarchical memory virtualization used in compute. It does so by taking advantage of the hierarchy inherent in the physical topology, and allowing both the virtual and physical address spaces to support complete forwarding and addressing models. However, like memory virtualization’s page table, encapsulation requires maintenance of the address mappings (rules to tunnel mappings). The interface for doing so should be open, and a good candidate for that interface is OpenFlow.
Now, onto the detailed argument …
Virtual Memory in Compute
Virtual memory has been a core component of compute virtualization for decades. The basic concept is very simple, multiple (generally sparse) virtual address spaces are multiplexed to a single compact physical address using a page table that contains the between the two.
An OS virtualizes the address space for a process by populating a table with a single level of translations from virtual addresses (VA) to physical addresses (PA). All hypervisors support the ability for a guest OS to continue working in this mode by adding the notion of a third address space called machine addresses (MA) for the true physical addresses.
Since x86 hardware initially supported only a single level of mappings the hypervisor implemented a complete MMU in software to capture and maintain the guest’s VA to PA mappings, and then created a second set of mappings from guest PA to actual hardware MA. What was actually programmed into hardware was VA to MA mappings, in order to not incur overhead during the actual memory references by the guest, but the full heirarchy was maintained so at any time the hypervisor components could easily take an address from any of the three address spaces and map it back to any of the other address spaces.
Having a multi-level hierarchical mapping was so powerful that eventually CPU vendors added support for multi-level page tables in the hardware MMU (called Nested Page Tables on AMD and Extended Page Tables on Intel). Arguably this was the biggest architectural change to CPUs over the last decade.
Benefits of address virtualization in compute
Although this is pretty basic stuff, it is worth enumerating the benefits it provides to see how these can be applied to the networking world.
- It allows the multiplexing of multiple large, sparse address spaces onto a smaller, compact physical address space.
- It supports mobility of a process within a physical address space. This can be used to more efficiently allocated processes to memory, or take advantage of new memory as it is added.
- VMs don’t have to coordinate with other VMs to select their address space. Or more generally, there are no constraints of the virtual address space that can be allocated to a guest VM.
- A virtual memory subsystem provides a basic unit of isolation. A VM cannot mistakingly (or maliciously) address another VM unless another part of the system is busted or compromised.
Address Virtualization for Networking
The point of this post is to explore whether memory virtualization in compute can provide guidance on network virtualization. It would be nice, for example, to retain the same benefits that made memory virtualization so successful.
We’ll start with some common approaches to network virtualization and see how they compare.
Tagging : The basic idea behind tagging is to mark packets at the edge of the network with some bits (the tag) that contains the virtual context. This tag generally encodes a unique identifier for the virtual network and perhaps the virtual ingress port. As the packet traverses the network, the tag is used to segment the forwarding tables to only apply to rules associated with that tag.
A tag does not provide “virtualization” in the same way virtual memory of compute does. Rather it provides segmentation (which was also a phase compute memory went through decades ago). That is, it doesn’t introduce a new address space, but rather segments an existing address space. As a result, the same addresses are used for both physical and virtual purposes. The implications of this can be quite limiting. For example:
- Since the addresses are used to address things in the virtual world *and* the physical world, they have to be exposed to the physical forwarding tables. Therefore the nice property of aggregation that comes with hierarchical address mapping cannot be exploited. Using VLANs as an example, every VM MAC has to be exposed to the hardware putting a lot of pressure on physical L2 tables. If virtual addresses where mapped to a smaller subset of physical addresses instead, the requirement for large L2 tables would go away.
- Due to layering, tags generally only segment a single address space (e.g. L2). Again, because there is no new address space introduced, this means that all of the virtual contexts must all have identical addressing models (e.g. L2) *and* the virtual addresses space must be the same as the physical address space. This unnecessarily couples the virtual and physical worlds. Imagine a case in which the model used to address the virtual domain would not be suitable for physical forwarding. The classic example of this is L2. VMs are given Ethernet NICs and may want to talk using L2 only. However, L2 is generally not a great way of building large fabrics. Introducing an additional address space can provide the desired service model at the virtual realm, and the appropriate forwarding model in the physical realm.
- Another shortcoming of tagging is that you cannot take advantage of mobility through address remapping. In the virtual address realm, you can arbitrarily map a virtual address to a physical address. If the process or VM moves, the mapping just needs to be updated. A tag however does not provide address mobility. The reason that VEPA, VNTAG, etc. support mobility within an L2 domain is by virtue of learned soft state in L2 (which exists whether or not a tag is in use). For layers that don’t support address mobility (say vanilla IP), using a tag won’t somehow enable it.It’s worth pointing out that this is a classic problem within virtualized datacenters today. L2 supports mobility, and L3 often does not. So while both can be segmented using tags, often only the L2 portion allows mobility confining VMs to a given subnet. Most of the approaches to VM mobility across subnets introduce another layer of addressing, whether this is done with LISP, tunnels, etc. However, as soon as encapsulation is introduced, it begs the question of why use tags at all.
There are a number of other differences between tagging and address-level virtualization (like requiring all switches en route to understand the tag), but hopefully you’ve gotten the point. To be more like memory virtualization, a new addressing layer needs to be present, and segmenting the physical address space doesn’t provide the same properties.
Address Mapping : Another method of network virtualization is address mapping. Unlike tagging, a new address space is introduced and mapped onto the physical address space by one or more devices in the network. The most common example of address mapping is NAT, although it doesn’t necessarily have to be limited to L3.
To avoid changing the framing format of the packet, address mapping operates by updating the address in place, meaning that the same field is used for the updated address. However, multiplexing multiple larger address spaces onto a smaller physical address space (for example, a bunch of private IP subnets onto a smaller physical IP subnet) is a lossy operation and therefore requires additional bits to map back from the smaller space to the larger space.
Here in lies much of the complexity (and commensurate shortcoming) of address mapping. Generally, the additional bits are added to a smaller field in the packet, and the full mapping information is stored as state on the device performing translation. This is what NAT does, the original 5 tuple is stashed on the device, and the ephemeral transport port is used to launder a key that points back to that 5 tuple on the return path.
When compared to virtual memory, the model doesn’t hold up particularly well. Within a server, the entire page table is always accessible, so addresses can be mapped back and forth with some additional information to aid in the demultiplexing (generally the pid). With network address translation, the “page table” is created on demand, and stored in a single device. Therefore, in order to support component failover of asymmetric paths, the per-flow state has to be replicated to all other devices that could be on the alternate path. Also, because state is set up during flow initiation from the virtual address, inbound flows cannot be forwarded unless the destination public IP address is effectively “pinned” to a virtual address. As a result, virtual to virtual communication in which the end points are behind different devices have to resort to OOB techniques like NAT punching in order to communicated.
This doesn’t mean that addressing mapping isn’t hugely useful in practice. Clearly for mapping from a virtual address space to a physical address space this is the correct approach. However, if communicating from a virtual address to a virtual address through a physical address space, it it is far more limited than its compute analog.
Tunneling : By tunneling we mean that the payload of a packet is another packet (headers and all).
Like address mapping (and virtual memory) tunneling introduces another address space. However, there are two differences. First, the virtual address space doesn’t have to look anything like the physical. For example, it is possible to have the virtual address space be IPv6 and the physical address space be IPv4. Second, the full address mapping is stored in the packet so that there is no need to create per-flow state within the network to manage the mappings.
Tunneling (or perhaps more broadly encapsulation) is probably the most popular method of doing full network virtualization today. TRILL uses L2 in L2, LISP uses encapsulation, VXLAN (which is LISP as far as I can tell) uses L2 in L3, VCDNI uses L2 in L2, NVGRE uses L2 in L3, etc.
The general approach maps to virtual memory pretty well. The outer header can be likened to a physical address. The inner header can be likened to a virtual address. And often a shim header is included just after the outer header that contains demultiplexing information (the equivalent of a PID). The “page table” consists of on-datapath table table entries which map packets to tunnels.
Take for example an overlay mesh (like NVGRE). The L2 table at the edge that points to the tunnels is effectively mapping from virtual addresses to physical addresses. And there is no reason to limit this lookup to L2, it could provide L2 and L3 in the virtual domain. If a VM moves, this “page table” is updated as it would be in a server of a process is moved.
Because the packets are encapsulated, switches in the “physical domain” only have to deal with the outer header greatly reducing the number of addresses they have to deal with. Switches which contain the “page table” however, have to do lookups in the virtual world (e.g. map from packet to tunnel), map to the physical world (throw a tunnel on the packet) and then forward the packet in the physical world (figure out which port to send the tunneled traffic out on). Note that these are effectively the same steps an MMU takes within a server.
Further, like memory virtualization, tunneling provides nice isolation properties. For example, a VM in the virtual address space cannot address the physical network unless the virtual network is somehow bridged into it.
Also, like hierarchical memory, it is possible for the logical networks to have totally different forwarding stacks. One could be L2-only, the other ipv4, and another ipv6, and all of these could differ from the physical substrate. A common setup has IPv6 run in the virtual domain (for end-to-end addressing), and IPv4 for the physical fabric (where a large address space isn’t needed).
Fortunately, we already have a a multi-level hierarchical topology in the network (in particularly the datacenter). This allows for either the addition of a new layer at the edge which provides a virtual address space without changing any other components, or just changing the components at the outer edge of the hierarchy.
So what are the shortcomings of this approach? The most immediate are performance issues with tunneling, additional overhead overhead in the packet, and the need to maintain the distributed “page table”.
Tunneling performance is no longer the problem it use to be. Even from software in the server, clever tunnel implementations are able to take advantage of LRO and the like and can achieve 10G performance without much CPU. Hardware tunneling on most switching chipsets performs at line rate as well. Header overhead marginally increases transmission delay, and will reduce total throughput if a link is saturated.
Keeping the “page tables” up to date on the other hand is still something the industry is grappling with. Most standards punt on describing how this is done, or even the interface to use to write to the “page table”. Some piggyback on L2 learning (like NVGRE) to construct some of the state but still rely on an out of band mechanism for other state (in the case of NVGRE the VIF to tenantID mapping).
As we’ve said many times in the past, this interface should be standardized if for no other reason than to provide modularity in the architecture. Not doing that would be like limiting a hardware MMU on a CPU to only work with a single Operating System.
Fortunately, Microsoft realizes this need and has opened the interface to their vswitch on Windows Server 8, and XenServer, KVM and other Linux-based hypervisors support Open vSwitch.
For hardware platforms it would also be nice to expose the ability to manage this state. Of course, we would argue that OpenFlow is a good candidate if for no other reason than it has been already used for this purpose successfully.
Wrapping Up ..
If the analogy of memory virtualization in compute holds then encapsulation is the correct way to go about network virtualization. It introduces a new address space that is unrestricted in forwarding model, it takes advantage of hierarchy inherent in the physical topology allowing for address aggregation further up in the hierarchy, and it provides the basic virtualization properties of isolation and transparent mobility.
In the next post of this series, we’ll explore how server virtualization suggests that the way that encapsulation is implemented today isn’t quite right, and some things we may want to do to fix it.
[This post was written with Andrew Lambeth. Andrew has been virtualizing networking for long enough to have coined the term “vswitch”, and led the vDS distributed switching project at VMware. ]
Or at least, it doesn’t need to solve the problem in the same way.
It’s commonly said that “networking needs a VMWare”. Hell, there have been occasions in which we’ve said something very similar. However, while the analogy has an obvious appeal (virtual, flexible, thin layer of indirection in software, commoditize, commoditize, commoditize!), a closer look suggests that it draws from a very superficial understanding of the technology, and in the limit, it doesn’t make much sense.
It’s no surprise that many are drawn to this line of thought. It probably stems from the realization that virtualizing the network rather than managing the physical components is the right direction for networks to evolve. On this point, it appears there is broad agreement. In order to bring networking up to the operational model of compute (and perhaps disrupt the existing supply chain a bit) virtualization is needed.
Beyond this gross comparison, however, the analogy breaks down. The reality is that the technical requirements for server virtualization and network virtualization are very, very different.
Server Virtualization vs. Network Virtualization
With server virtualization, virtualizing CPU, memory and device I/O is incredibly complex, and the events that need to be handled with translation or emulation happen at CPU cycle timescale. So the virtualization logic must be both highly sophisticated and highly performant on the “datapath” (the datapath for compute virtualization being the instruction stream and I/O events).
On the other hand, the datapath operations for network virtualization are almost trivially simple. All they involve is mapping one address/context space to another address/context space. This effectively reduces to an additional header on the packet (or tag), and one or two more lookups on the datapath. Somewhat revealing of this simplicity, there are multiple reasonable solutions that address the datapath component, NVGRE, and VXLAN being two recently publicized proposals.
If the datapath is so simple, it’s reasonable to ask why network virtualization isn’t already a solved problem.
The answer, is that there is a critical difference between network virtualization and server virtualization and that difference is where the bulk of complexity for network virtualization resides.
What is that difference?
Virtualized servers are effectively self contained in that they are only very loosely coupled to one another (there are a few exceptions to this rule, but even then, the groupings with direct relationships are small). As a result, the virtualization logic doesn’t need to deal with the complexity of state sharing between many entities.
A virtualized network solution, on the other hand, has to deal with all ports on the network, most of which can be assumed to have a direct relationship (the ability to communicate via some service model). Therefore, the virtual networking logic not only has to deal with N instances of N state (assuming every port wants to talk to every other port), but it has to ensure that state is consistent (or at least safely inconsistent) along all of the elements on the path of a packet. Inconsistent state can result in packet loss (not a huge deal) or much worse, delivery of the packet to the wrong location.
It’s important to remember that networking traditionally has only had to deal with eventual consistency. That is “after state change, the network will take some time to converge, and until that time, all bets are off”. Eventual consistency is fine for basic forwarding provided that loops are prevented using a TTL, or perhaps the algorithm ensures loop freedom while it is converging. However, eventual consistency doesn’t work so well with virtualization. During failure, for example, it would suck if packets from tenant A managed to leak over to tenant B’s network. It would also suck if ACLs configured in tenant A’s were not enforced correctly during convergence.
So simply, the difference between server virtualization, and network virtualization is that network virtualization is all about scale (dealing with the complexity of many interconnected entities which is generally a N2 problem), and it is all about distributed state consistency. Or more concretely, it is a distributed state management problem rather than a low level exercise in dealing with the complexities of various hardware devices.
Of course, depending on the layer of networking being virtualized, the amount of state that has to be managed varies.
All network virtualization solutions have to handle basic address mapping. That is, provide a virtual address space (generally addresses of the packets within the tunnel) and the physical address space (the external tunnel header), and a mapping between the two (virtual address X is at physical address Y). Any of the many tunnel overlays solutions, whether ad hoc, proprietary, or standardized provide this basic mapping service.
To then virtualize L2, requires almost no additional state management. The L2 forwarding tables are dynamically populated from passing traffic. And the size of a single broadcast domain has fairly limited scale, supporting hundreds or low thousands of active MACs. So the only additional state that has to be managed is the association of a port (virtual or physical) to a broadcast domain which is what virtual networking standards like NVGRE and VXLAN provide.
As an aside, it’s a shame that standards like NVGRE and VXLAN choose to dictate the wire format (important for hardware compatibility) and the method for managing the context mapping between address domains (multicast), but not the control interface to manage the rest of the state. Specifying the wire format is fine. However, requiring a specific mechanism (and a shaky one at that) for managing the virtual to physical address mappings severely limits the solution space. And not specifying the control interface for managing the rest of the state effectively guarantees that implementations will be vertically integrated and proprietary.
For L3, there is a lot more state to deal with, and the number of end points to which this state applies can be very large. There are a number of datacenters today who have, or plan to have, millions of VMs. Because of this, any control plane that hopes to offer a virtualized L3 solution needs to manage potentially millions of entries at hundreds of thousands of end points (assuming the first hop network logic is within the vswitch). Clearly, scale is a primary consideration.
As another aside, in our experience, there is a lot of confusion on what exactly L3 virtualization is. While a full discussion will have to wait for a future post, it is worth pointing out that running a router as a VM is *not* network virtualization, it is x86 virtualization. Network virtualzation involves mapping between network address contexts in a manner that does not effect the total available bandwidth of the physical fabric. Running a networking stack in a virtual machine, while it does provide the benefits of x86 virtualization, limits the cross-sectional bandwidth of the emulated network to the throughput of a virtual machine. Ouch.
For L4 and above, the amount of state that has to be shared and the rate that it changes increases again by orders of magnitude. Take, for example, WAN optimization. A virtualized WAN optimization solution should be enforced throughout the network (for example, each vswitch running a piece of it) yet this would incur a tremendous amount of control overhead to create a shared content cache.
So while server virtualization lives and dies by the ability to deal with the complexity of virtualizing complex hardware interfaces of many devices at speed, network virtualization’s primary technical challenge is scale. Any solution that doesn’t deal with this up front will probably run into a wall at L2, or with some luck, basic L3.
This is all interesting … but why do I care?
Full virtualization of the network address space and service model is still a relatively new area. However, rather than tackle the problem of network virtualization directly, it appears that a fair amount of energy in industry is being poured into point solutions. This reminds us of the situation 10 years ago when many people were trying to solve server sprawl problems with application containers, and the standard claim was that virtualization didn’t offer additional benefits to justify the overhead and complexity of fully virtualizing the platform. Had that mindset prevailed, today we’d have solutions doing minimal server consolidation for a small handful of applications on only one or possibly two OSs, instead of a set of solutions that solve this and many many more problems for any application and most any OS. That mindset, for example could never have produced vMotion, which was unimaginable at the outset of server virtualization.
At the same time, those who are advocating for network virtualization tend to draw technical comparisons with server virtualization. And while clearly there is a similarity at the macro level, this comparison belies the radically different technical challenges of the two problems. And it belies the radically different approaches needed to solve the two problems. Network virtualization is not the same as server virtualization any more than server virtualization is the same as storage virtualization. Saying “the network needs a VMware” in 2012 is a little like saying “the x86 needs an EMC” in 2002.
Perhaps the confusion is harmless, but it does seem to effect how the solution space is viewed, and that may be drawing the conversation away from what really is important, scale (lots of it) and distributed state consistency. Worrying about the datapath , is worrying about a trivial component of an otherwise enormously challenging problem.
[This post was written with Andrew Lambeth. A version of it has been posted on Search Networking, but I wasn’t totally happy with how that turned out. So here is a revised version. ]
[A lot of the content of this post was drawn from conversations with Juan Lage, Rajiv Ramanathan, and Mohammad Attar]
Some of the more aggressive buzz around OpenFlow has lauded it as a mechanism for re-implementing networking in total. While in some (fairly fanciful) reality, that could be the case, categorical statements of this nature tend hide practical design trade-offs that exist between any set of technologies within a design continuum.
What do I mean by that? Just that there are things that OpenFlow and more broadly SDN are better suited for than others.
In fact, the original work that lead to OpenFlow was not meant to re-implement all of networking. That’s not to say that this isn’t a worthwhile (if not quixotic) goal. Yet our focus was to explore new methods for datapath state whose management was difficult to do with using the traditional approach of full distribution with eventual consistency.
And what sort of state might that be? Clearly destination-based, shortest path forwarding state can be calculated in a distributed fashion. But there is a lot more state in the datapath beyond that used for standard forwarding (filters, tagging, policy routing, QoS policy, etc.). And there are a lot more desired uses for networks than vanilla destination-based forwarding.
Of course, much of this “other” state is not computed algorithmically today. Rather, it is updated manually, or through scripts whose function more closely resembles macro replacement than computation.
Still, our goal was (and still is) to compute this state programmatically.
So the question really boils down to whether the algorithm needed to compute the datapath state is easily distributed. For example, if the state management algorithm has any of the following properties it probably isn’t, and is therefore a potential candidate for SDN.
- It is not amenable to being split up into many smaller pieces (as opposed to fewer, larger instances). The limiting property in these cases is often excessive communication overhead between the control nodes.
- It is not amenable to running on heterogeneous compute environments. For example those with varying processor speeds and available memory.
- It is not amenable to relatively long RTT’s for communication between distributed instances. In the purely distributed case, the upper bound for communicating between any two nodes scales linearly with the longest loop free path.
- The algorithm requires sophisticated distributed coordination between instances (for example distributed locking or leader election)
There are many examples of algorithms that have these properties which can (and are) used in networking. The one I generally use as an example is a runtime policy compiler. One of our earliest SDN implementations was effectively a Datalog compiler that would take a topologically independent network policy and compile it into flows (in the form of ACL and policy routing rules).
Other examples include implementing global solvers to optimize routes for power, cost, security policy, etc., and managing distributed virtual network contexts.
The distribution properties of most of these algorithms are well understood (and have been for decades). And so it is fairly straightforward to put together an argument which demonstrates that SDN offers advantages over traditional approaches in these environments. In fact, outside of OpenFlow, it isn’t uncommon to see elements of the control plane decoupled from the dataplane in security, management, and virtualization products.
However, networking’s raison d’être, it’s killer app, is forwarding. Plain ol’ vanilla forwarding. And as we all know, the networking community long ago developed algorithms to do that which distribute wonderfully across many heterogeneous compute nodes.
So, that begs the question. Does SDN provide any value to the simple problem of forwarding? That is, if the sole purpose of my network is to move traffic between two end-points, should I use a trusty distributed algorithm (like an L3 stack) that is well understood and has matured for the last couple of decades? Or is there some compelling reason to use an SDN approach?
This is the question we’d like to explore in this post. The punchline (as always, for the impatient) is that I find it very difficult to argue that SDN has value when it comes to providing simple connectivity. That’s simply not the point in the design space that OpenFlow was created for. And simple distributed approaches, like L3 + ECMP, tend to work very well. On the other hand, in environments where transport is expensive along some dimension, and global optimization provides value, SDN starts to become attractive.
First, lets take a look at the problem of forwarding:
Forwarding to me simply means find a path between a source and a destination in a network topology. Of course, you don’t want the path to suck, meaning that the algorithm should efficiently use available bandwidth and not choose horribly suboptimal hop counts.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to assume two scenarios in which we want to do forwarding: (a) let’s assume that bandwidth and connectivity are cheap and plentiful and that any path to get between two points are roughly the same (b) lets assume none of these properties.
We’ll start with the latter case.
In many networks, not all paths are equal. Some may be more expensive than others due to costs of third party transit, some may be more congested than others leading to queuing delays and loss, different paths may support different latencies or maximum bandwidth limits, and so on.
In some deployments, the forwarding problem can be further complicated by security constraints (all flows of type X must go through middleboxes) and other policy requirements.
Further, some of these properties change in real time. Take for example the cost of transit. The price of a link could increases dramatically after some threshold of use has been hit. Or consider how a varying traffic matrix may affect the queuing delay and available bandwidth of network paths.
Under such conditions, one can start to make an argument for SDN over traditional distributed routing protocols.
Why? For two reasons. First, the complexity of the computation increases with the number of properties being optimized over. It also increases with the complexity in the policy model, for example a policy that operates over source, protocol and destination is going to be more difficult than one that only considers destination.
Second, as the frequency in which these properties change increases, the amount of information the needs to be disseminated increases. An SDN approach can greatly limit the total amount of information that needs to hit the wire by reducing the distribution of the control nodes. Fully distributed protocols generally flood this information as it isn’t clear which node needs to know about the updates. There have been many proposals in the literature to address these problems, but to my knowledge they’ve seen little or no adoption.
I presume these costs are why a lot of TE engines operate offline where you can throw a lot of compute and memory at the problem.
So, if optimaility is really important (due to the cost of getting it wrong), and the inputs change a lot, and there is a lot of stuff being optimized over, SDN can help.
Now, what about the case in which bandwidth is abundant, relatively cheap and any sensible path between two points will do?
The canonical example for this is the datacenter fabric. In order to accommodate workload placement anywhere, datacenter physical networks are often built using non-oversubscribed topologies. And the cost of equipment to build these is plummeting. If you are comfortable with an extremely raw supply channel, it’s possible to get 48 ports of 10G today for under $5k. That’s pretty damn cheap.
So, say you’re building a datacenter fabric, you’ve purchased piles of cheap 10G gear and you’ve wired up a fat tree of some sort. Do you then configure OSPF with ECMP (or some other multipathing approach) and be done with it? Or does it make sense to attempt to use an SDN approach to compute the forwarding paths?
It turns out that efficiently calculating forwarding paths in a highly connected graph, and converging those paths on failure is something distributed protocols do really, really well. So well, in fact, that it’s hard to find areas to improve.
For example, the common approach of using multipathing approximates Valiant load balancing which effectively means the following: if you send a packet to an arbitrary point in the network, and that point forwards it to the destination, then for a regular topology, and any traffic matrix, you’ll be pretty close to fully using the fabric bandwidth (within a factor of two given some assumptions on flow arrival rates).
That’s a pretty stunning statement. What’s more stunning is that it can be accomplished with local decisions, and without requiring per-flow state, or any additional control overhead in the network. It also obviates the need for a control loop to monitor and respond to changes in the network. This latter property is particularly nice as the care and feeding of control loops to prevent oscillations or divergence can add a ton of complexity to the system.
On the other hand, trying to scale a solution using classic OpenFlow almost certainly won’t work. To begin with the use of n-tuples (say per-flow, or even per host/destination pair) will most likely result in table space exhaustion. Even with very large tables (hundreds of thousands) the solution is unlikely to be suitable for even moderately sized datacenters.
Further, to efficiently use the fabric, multipathing should be done per flow. It’s highly unlikely (in my experience) that having the controller participate in flow setup will have the desired performance and scale characteristics. Therefore the multipathing should be done in the fabric (which is possible in a later version of OpenFlow like 1.1 or the upcoming 1.2).
Given these constraints, an SDN approach would probably look a lot like a traditional routing protocol. That is, the resulting state would most likely be destination IP prefixes (so we can take advantage of aggregation and reduce the table requirements by a factor of N over source-destination pairs). Further, multipathing, and link failure detection would have to be done on the switch.
Another complication of using SDN is establishing connectivity to the controller. This clearly requires each switch to run something to bootstrap communication, like a traditional protocol. In most SDN implementations I know of, L3 is used for this purpose. So now, not only are we effectively mimicking L3 in the controller to manage datapath state, we haven’t been able to get rid of the distributed approach potentially doubling the control complexity network wide.
So, does SDN provide value for forwarding in these environments? Given the previous discussion it is difficult to argue in favor of SDN.
Does SDN provide more functionality? Unlikely, being limited to manipulating destination prefixes with multipathing being carried out by switches robs SDN of much of its value. The controller cannot make decisions on anything but the destination. And since the controller doesn’t know a priori which path a flow will take, it will be difficult to add additional table rules without replicating state all over the network (clearly a scalability issue).
How about operational simplicity? One might argue that in order to scale an IGP one would have to manually configure areas which presumably would be done automatically with SDN. However, it is difficult to argue that building a separate control network, or in-band-configuring is any less complex than a simple ID to switch mapping.
What about scale? I’ll leave the details of that discussion to another post. Juan Lage, Rajiv Ramanathan, and I have had a on-again, off-again e-mail discussion comparing that scaling properties of SDN to that of L3 for building a fabric. The upshot is that there are nice proof-points on both sides, but given today’s switching chipsets, even with SDN, you basically end up populating the same tables that L3 does. So any scale argument revolves around reducing the RTT to the controller through a single-function control network, and reducing the need to flood. Neither of these tricks are likely to produce a significant scale advantage for SDN, but they seem to produce some.
So, what’s the take-away?
It’s worth remembering that SDN, like any technology, is actually a point in the design space, and is not necessarily the best option for all deployment environments.
My mental model for SDN starts with looking at the forwarding state, and asking the question “what algorithm needs to run to compute that state”. The second question I ask is, “can that algorithm be easily distributed amongst many nodes with different compute and memory resources”. In many use cases, the answer to this latter question is “not-really”. The examples I provide general reduce to global solvers used for finding optimal solutions with many (often changing) variables. And in such cases, SDN is a shoo in.
However, in the case of building out networking fabrics in which bandwidth is plentiful and shortest path (or something similar) is sufficient, there are a number of great, well tested distributed algorithms for the job. In such environments, it’s difficult to argue the merits of building out a separate control network, adding additional control nodes, and running vastly less mature software.
But perhaps, that’s just me. Thoughts?