Minimizing Effort and Risk with Network Change Deployment Planning

Networks undergo continuous changes to introduce new services and improve existing ones. Network change deployment involves carefully deciding when each change activity will be executed and who will be executing the change. This is a complex process because each service group has to plan its activities following a set of operational and technological constraints. Besides, multiple groups may be working on the same or dependent nodes at the same time, and they must coordinate their deployment plans. If they do not co-ordinate, conflicting change execution could result in unexpected impacts. Traditionally, change deployment has been a tedious and time-consuming task. To address this, we propose an innovative solution Zapper that aims for minimal human effort to coordinate the changes, minimal risk to service quality, and efficient plans to rapidly deploy the changes. Zapper maps change scheduling constraints into mathematical equations and then uses optimization algorithms to generate conflict-free change plans that satisfy all constraints across service groups. We have deployed Zapper at a large service provider and it is being used regularly by the network operations teams for more than two years to schedule over 4.5 million change activities.

[1]  Sujata Banerjee,et al.  Democratic Resolution of Resource Conflicts Between SDN Control Programs , 2014, CoNEXT.

[2]  Minlan Yu,et al.  Risk based planning of network changes in evolving data centers , 2019, SOSP.

[3]  Lia Purpura On Tools , 2012 .

[4]  Jing Xu,et al.  Robust assessment of changes in cellular networks , 2013, CoNEXT.

[5]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Constraint Programming for High School Timetabling: A Scheduling-Based Model with Hot Starts , 2018, CPAIOR.

[6]  David Walker,et al.  Frenetic: a network programming language , 2011, ICFP.

[7]  David Walker,et al.  Composing Software Defined Networks , 2013, NSDI.

[8]  Xin Jin,et al.  Dynamic scheduling of network updates , 2014, SIGCOMM.

[9]  Yin Zhang,et al.  Rapid detection of maintenance induced changes in service performance , 2011, CoNEXT '11.

[10]  Yujie Liu,et al.  Optimal scheduling for multi-flow update in Software-Defined Networks , 2015, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[11]  Lili Qiu,et al.  Coordinating rolling software upgrades for cellular networks , 2017, 2017 IEEE 25th International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP).

[12]  H. Maylor Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on , 2001 .

[13]  G. Nemhauser,et al.  Integer Programming , 2020 .

[14]  Fatos Xhafa,et al.  Metaheuristics for Scheduling in Industrial and Manufacturing Applications , 2008, Metaheuristics for Scheduling in Industrial and Manufacturing Applications.

[15]  Markus P. J. Fromherz,et al.  Constraint-based scheduling , 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference. (Cat. No.01CH37148).

[16]  Yin Zhang,et al.  Detecting the performance impact of upgrades in large operational networks , 2010, SIGCOMM '10.

[17]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  On-Line Algorithms Versus Off-Line Algorithms: How Much is it Worth to Know the Future? , 1992, IFIP Congress.

[18]  Xin Yang,et al.  Canaries in the Network , 2016, HotNets.

[19]  Ruzica Piskac,et al.  Check before You Change: Preventing Correlated Failures in Service Updates , 2020, NSDI.

[20]  Thomas R. Stidsen,et al.  Integer programming for the generalized high school timetabling problem , 2015, J. Sched..