Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Generalized vs. Destination-Based Forwarding

Uploaded by

maichungtiengd
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Generalized vs. Destination-Based Forwarding

Uploaded by

maichungtiengd
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

In generalized forwarding, a match-plus-action table generalizes the notion of the

destination-based forwarding table that we encountered in Section 4.2.1. Because


forwarding decisions may be made using network-layer and/or link-layer source and
destination addresses, the forwarding devices shown in Figure 4.28 are more
accurately described as “packet switches” rather than layer 3 “routers” or layer 2
“switches.” Thus, in the remainder of this section, and in Section 5.5, we’ll refer
to these devices as packet switches, adopting the terminology that is gaining wide-
spread adoption in SDN literature.
Figure 4.28 shows a match-plus-action table in each packet switch, with the table
being computed, installed, and updated by a remote controller. We note that while
it is possible for the control components at the individual packet switches to
interact with each other (e.g., in a manner similar to that in Figure 4.2), in
practice, generalized match-plus-action capabilities are implemented via a remote
controller that computes, installs, and updates these tables. You might take a
minute to compare Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.28—what similarities and differences do
you notice between destination-based forwarding shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3, and
generalized forward- ing shown in Figure 4.28?
Our following discussion of generalized forwarding will be based on Open- Flow
[McKeown 2008, ONF 2020, Casado 2014, Tourrilhes 2014]—a highly visible standard
that has pioneered the notion of the match-plus-action forwarding abstrac- tion and
controllers, as well as the SDN revolution more generally [Feamster 2013]. We’ll
primarily consider OpenFlow 1.0, which introduced key In generalized forwarding, a
match-plus-action table generalizes the notion of the destination-based forwarding
table that we encountered in Section 4.2.1. Because forwarding decisions may be
made using network-layer and/or link-layer source and destination addresses, the
forwarding devices shown in Figure 4.28 are more accurately described as “packet
switches” rather than layer 3 “routers” or layer 2 “switches.” Thus, in the
remainder of this section, and in Section 5.5, we’ll refer to these devices as
packet switches, adopting the terminology that is gaining wide- spread adoption in
SDN literature.
Figure 4.28 shows a match-plus-action table in each packet switch, with the table
being computed, installed, and updated by a remote controller. We note that while
it is possible for the control components at the individual packet switches to
interact with each other (e.g., in a manner similar to that in Figure 4.2), in
practice, generalized match-plus-action capabilities are implemented via a remote
controller that computes, installs, and updates these tables. You might take a
minute to compare Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.28—what similarities and differences do
you notice between destination-based forwarding shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3, and
generalized forward- ing shown in Figure 4.28?
Our following discussion of generalized forwarding will be based on Open- Flow
[McKeown 2008, ONF 2020, Casado 2014, Tourrilhes 2014]—a highly visible standard
that has pioneered the notion of the match-plus-action forwarding abstrac- tion and
controllers, as well as the SDN revolution more generally [Feamster 2013]. We’ll
primarily consider OpenFlow 1.0, which introduced key In generalized forwarding, a
match-plus-action table generalizes the notion of the destination-based forwarding
table that we encountered in Section 4.2.1. Because forwarding decisions may be
made using network-layer and/or link-layer source and destination addresses, the
forwarding devices shown in Figure 4.28 are more accurately described as “packet
switches” rather than layer 3 “routers” or layer 2 “switches.” Thus, in the
remainder of this section, and in Section 5.5, we’ll refer to these devices as
packet switches, adopting the terminology that is gaining wide- spread adoption in
SDN literature.
Figure 4.28 shows a match-plus-action table in each packet switch, with the table
being computed, installed, and updated by a remote controller. We note that while
it is possible for the control components at the individual packet switches to
interact with each other (e.g., in a manner similar to that in Figure 4.2), in
practice, generalized match-plus-action capabilities are implemented via a remote
controller that computes, installs, and updates these tables. You might take a
minute to compare Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.28—what similarities and differences do
you notice between destination-based forwarding shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3, and
generalized forward- ing shown in Figure 4.28?
Our following discussion of generalized forwarding will be based on Open- Flow
[McKeown 2008, ONF 2020, Casado 2014, Tourrilhes 2014]—a highly visible standard
that has pioneered the notion of the match-plus-action forwarding abstrac- tion and
controllers, as well as the SDN revolution more generally [Feamster 2013]. We’ll
primarily consider OpenFlow 1.0, which introduced key In generalized forwarding, a
match-plus-action table generalizes the notion of the destination-based forwarding
table that we encountered in Section 4.2.1. Because forwarding decisions may be
made using network-layer and/or link-layer source and destination addresses, the
forwarding devices shown in Figure 4.28 are more accurately described as “packet
switches” rather than layer 3 “routers” or layer 2 “switches.” Thus, in the
remainder of this section, and in Section 5.5, we’ll refer to these devices as
packet switches, adopting the terminology that is gaining wide- spread adoption in
SDN literature.
Figure 4.28 shows a match-plus-action table in each packet switch, with the table
being computed, installed, and updated by a remote controller. We note that while
it is possible for the control components at the individual packet switches to
interact with each other (e.g., in a manner similar to that in Figure 4.2), in
practice, generalized match-plus-action capabilities are implemented via a remote
controller that computes, installs, and updates these tables. You might take a
minute to compare Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.28—what similarities and differences do
you notice between destination-based forwarding shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3, and
generalized forward- ing shown in Figure 4.28?
Our following discussion of generalized forwarding will be based on Open- Flow
[McKeown 2008, ONF 2020, Casado 2014, Tourrilhes 2014]—a highly visible standard
that has pioneered the notion of the match-plus-action forwarding abstrac- tion and
controllers, as well as the SDN revolution more generally [Feamster 2013]. We’ll
primarily consider OpenFlow 1.0, which introduced key

Common questions

Powered by AI

Generalized forwarding, implemented by a remote controller, differs from traditional methods by centralizing the control functions into a singular entity that oversees the computation, installation, and update of match-plus-action tables. Unlike traditional methods, which rely on individual device configurations, this facilitates a more cohesive and manageable network environment that can quickly adapt to changes, policy updates, and varying traffic conditions across the network .

Match-plus-action tables enhance flexibility and functionality by allowing forwarding decisions to consider multiple data fields, including network-layer and link-layer source and destination addresses. This enables more granular and varied network behavior, such as policy enforcement and traffic management, facilitating more sophisticated network functions that are adaptive to differing network demands, which is a significant improvement over traditional static forwarding methods .

Generalized forwarding with match-plus-action tables allows forwarding decisions to be made using both network-layer and link-layer source and destination addresses, unlike traditional destination-based forwarding which primarily relies on network-layer destination addresses. This results in devices being described as 'packet switches' rather than strictly as layer 3 'routers' or layer 2 'switches' . Generalized forwarding is typically implemented by a remote controller that computes, installs, and updates these tables, differing from the more autonomous configuration seen in destination-based forwarding .

Network devices using generalized forwarding are called 'packet switches' because they operate based on match-plus-action tables that consider both network-layer and link-layer addresses. This broader scope distinguishes them from traditional devices like 'routers' (which usually focus on layer 3) and 'switches' (which focus on layer 2).

OpenFlow plays a pivotal role by pioneering the match-plus-action forwarding abstraction and establishing standards for controllers used in the SDN (Software-Defined Networking) paradigm. The introduction of OpenFlow 1.0 standardized the implementation and operation of remote controllers managing packet switches, facilitating the SDN revolution by enabling more centralized and programmable network control .

Beyond implementing match-plus-action tables, the OpenFlow protocol facilitates the SDN revolution by enabling programmable network control, allowing administrators to adjust network operations dynamically. It provides a standardized interface for application developers to create network applications, thereby enhancing network agility, reducing reliance on proprietary vendor solutions, and fostering innovation within the networking domain .

Transitioning to SDN-based generalized forwarding involves the practical implementation of remote controllers managing packet switches via match-plus-action tables. This transition allows for improved flexibility and centralized control but also poses challenges such as the need for significant infrastructure changes, potential vendor lock-in, and the need for comprehensive security measures to protect against centralized control vulnerabilities. Furthermore, it may require new skills and training for network administrators used to traditional network management paradigms .

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 depict traditional destination-based forwarding, where decisions are made primarily using the network-layer destination address. In contrast, Figure 4.28 illustrates generalized forwarding where match-plus-action tables support decisions based on both network-layer and link-layer addresses, reflecting the structure and capabilities of SDN-based packet switches . While Figures 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate scenarios with more autonomous local configuration, Figure 4.28 emphasizes centralized control via a remote controller .

In Software-Defined Networking, a remote controller improves network management by centralizing the computation, installation, and updating of match-plus-action tables in packet switches. This centralization allows for more unified control and optimization across the network, facilitating dynamic adjustments and a more programmable network infrastructure, as opposed to the decentralized configuration of traditional networks .

The OpenFlow standard is significant as it established the foundational protocol for implementing match-plus-action tables in packet switches managed by central controllers, a core concept of SDN. This standardization allows for a consistent implementation across different network devices and vendors, promoting interoperability and facilitating the widespread adoption and integration of SDN technologies into existing network infrastructures .

You might also like