Efficient Round-Trip Time monitoring in OpenFlow networks

Monitoring Round-Trip Time provides important insights for network troubleshooting and traffic engineering. The common monitoring technique is to actively send probe packets from selected vantage points (hosts or middleboxes). In traditional networks, the control over the network routing is limited, making it impossible to monitor every selected path. The emerging concept of Software Defined Networking simplifies network control. However, OpenFlow, the common SDN protocol, does not support RTT monitoring as part of its specification. In this paper, we leverage the ability of OpenFlow to control the routing, and present GRAMI, the Granular RTT Monitoring Infrastructure. GRAMI uses active probing from selected vantage points for efficient RTT monitoring of all the links and any round-trip path between any two switches in the network. GRAMI was designed to be resource efficient. It requires only four flow entries installed on every switch in order to enable RTT monitoring of all the links. For every round-trip path selected by the user, it requires a maximum of two additional flow entries installed on every switch along the measured path. Moreover, GRAMI uses a minimal number of probe packets, and does not require the involvement of the controller during online RTT monitoring.

[1]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  King: estimating latency between arbitrary internet end hosts , 2002, IMW '02.

[2]  Mathieu Bouet,et al.  Monitoring latency with OpenFlow , 2013, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM 2013).

[3]  John B. Carter,et al.  SDN traceroute: tracing SDN forwarding without changing network behavior , 2014, HotSDN.

[4]  Hua Chen,et al.  Pingmesh: A Large-Scale System for Data Center Network Latency Measurement and Analysis , 2015, SIGCOMM.

[5]  David Walker,et al.  Compiling path queries in software-defined networks , 2014, HotSDN.

[6]  Fernando A. Kuipers,et al.  OpenNetMon: Network monitoring in OpenFlow Software-Defined Networks , 2014, 2014 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS).

[7]  Y. Vardi,et al.  Network Tomography: Estimating Source-Destination Traffic Intensities from Link Data , 1996 .

[8]  George Varghese,et al.  P4: programming protocol-independent packet processors , 2013, CCRV.

[9]  Nick McKeown,et al.  A network in a laptop: rapid prototyping for software-defined networks , 2010, Hotnets-IX.

[10]  Balachander Krishnamurthy,et al.  Internet Measurement - Infrastructure, Traffic, and Applications , 2006 .

[11]  Fang Hao,et al.  Scotch: Elastically Scaling up SDN Control-Plane using vSwitch based Overlay , 2014, CoNEXT.

[12]  Randy Bush,et al.  From Paris to Tokyo: on the suitability of ping to measure latency , 2013, Internet Measurement Conference.

[13]  Paul Francis,et al.  IDMaps: a global internet host distance estimation service , 2001, TNET.

[14]  Brice Augustin,et al.  Measuring load-balanced paths in the internet , 2007, IMC '07.

[15]  Qiang Xu,et al.  Software-Defined Latency Monitoring in Data Center Networks , 2015, PAM.

[16]  Matthew Roughan,et al.  The Internet Topology Zoo , 2011, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[17]  Andrea Bianco,et al.  OpenFlow Switching: Data Plane Performance , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[18]  Teofilo F. GONZALEZ,et al.  Clustering to Minimize the Maximum Intercluster Distance , 1985, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Paul Barford,et al.  Network radar: tomography from round trip time measurements , 2004, IMC '04.