A Method for Comparing OpenFlow and P4

Paul Zanna, P. Radcliffe, K. G. Chavez
{"title":"A Method for Comparing OpenFlow and P4","authors":"Paul Zanna, P. Radcliffe, K. G. Chavez","doi":"10.1109/ITNAC46935.2019.9077951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OpenFlow has had a significant impact on computer networking and ushered in the age of Software Defined Networking (SDN). Now the P4 programming language promises to drive this innovation even further by allowing the unparalleled customisability of network devices. Even though they have different capabilities and goals, there is still an overlap in functionality between OpenFlow and P4. This overlap, predominately in the way packets are processed, has not been compared and therefore remains a question that could impact operators considering these two implementations. The primary reason for the lack of comparison data lies in the physical deployment model of these technologies. The inability to isolate pipeline processing and perform a comparison based on identical functionality, without the external influence from auxiliary functions, has made this type of measurement difficult. In this paper, we present such a comparison using the Zodiac FX a hybrid hardware/software Ethernet switch with a dedicated open-source firmware capable of running both implementations equally. By developing a P4 compiler backend capable of generating an equivalent packet processing pipeline for the Zodiac FX, we have been able to perform a direct like-for-like comparison of the performance and efficiency of these two approaches. This comparison highlights the similarity in performance of the two approaches when implementing the equivalent functionality on the same hardware.","PeriodicalId":407514,"journal":{"name":"2019 29th International Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ITNAC)","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 29th International Telecommunication Networks and Applications Conference (ITNAC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNAC46935.2019.9077951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

OpenFlow has had a significant impact on computer networking and ushered in the age of Software Defined Networking (SDN). Now the P4 programming language promises to drive this innovation even further by allowing the unparalleled customisability of network devices. Even though they have different capabilities and goals, there is still an overlap in functionality between OpenFlow and P4. This overlap, predominately in the way packets are processed, has not been compared and therefore remains a question that could impact operators considering these two implementations. The primary reason for the lack of comparison data lies in the physical deployment model of these technologies. The inability to isolate pipeline processing and perform a comparison based on identical functionality, without the external influence from auxiliary functions, has made this type of measurement difficult. In this paper, we present such a comparison using the Zodiac FX a hybrid hardware/software Ethernet switch with a dedicated open-source firmware capable of running both implementations equally. By developing a P4 compiler backend capable of generating an equivalent packet processing pipeline for the Zodiac FX, we have been able to perform a direct like-for-like comparison of the performance and efficiency of these two approaches. This comparison highlights the similarity in performance of the two approaches when implementing the equivalent functionality on the same hardware.
一种比较OpenFlow和P4的方法
OpenFlow对计算机网络产生了重大影响,并开创了软件定义网络(SDN)时代。现在,P4编程语言承诺通过允许网络设备无与伦比的可定制性,进一步推动这一创新。尽管它们具有不同的功能和目标,但OpenFlow和P4之间在功能上仍然存在重叠。这种重叠(主要是在处理数据包的方式上)尚未进行比较,因此仍然是一个可能影响考虑这两种实现的运营商的问题。缺乏比较数据的主要原因在于这些技术的物理部署模型。由于无法在没有外部辅助功能影响的情况下,隔离管道处理并基于相同功能进行比较,这使得此类测量变得困难。在本文中,我们使用Zodiac FX进行了这样的比较,这是一种混合硬件/软件以太网交换机,具有能够平等运行这两种实现的专用开源固件。通过开发能够为Zodiac FX生成等效数据包处理管道的P4编译器后端,我们已经能够对这两种方法的性能和效率进行直接的同类比较。这种比较突出了在相同硬件上实现相同功能时两种方法在性能上的相似性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信