Floodless in SEATTLE: A Scalable Ethernet Architecture for Large Enterprises

C. Kim, M. Caesar, J. Rexford, "Floodless in SEATTLE: A Scalable Ethernet Architecture for Large Enterprises," ACM SIGCOMM Conference, (August 2008).

One line summary: This paper describes SEATTLE, an Ethernet-based architecture for use as a building block in large enterprise networks that uses a DHT to provide the same functionality as conventional Ethernet, but in a scalable and easy-to-administer way.

Summary

This paper discusses an alternative Ethernet-based protocol for use as a network building block in enterprise and access provider networks called SEATTLE. It is motivated by the observation that despite it’s usefulness especially concerning its plug-and-play semantics, conventional Ethernet scales poorly and has several limitations. (1) It disseminates every host’s location globally using flooding, resulting in high control overhead and large forwarding table sizes, (2) it forces paths to make up a spanning tree, constraining route selection, and (3) bootstrapping protocols such as ARP and DHCP rely on broadcasts for frequent and basic operations, degrading network performance. One alternative that attempts to address some of the problems with Ethernet is to decompose the network into multiple LANs interconnected by IP routing. The disadvantages of this approach include (1) configuration overhead due to hierarchical addressing and difficulty in maintaining consistency between routers and DCHP servers, (2) complexity in implementing network policies, since these are often based on the IP prefix of a host, which is subject to change, and (3) limited support for host mobility, making it difficult for hosts to move from one subnet to another. An additional approach that uses virtual LANs (VLANs) instead of LANS is used to address these deficiencies in turn, however, it too has its limitations. These include (1) overhead in configuring trunks – deciding which bridges should be in a given VLAN must often be done manually, (2) large forwarding table entries on bridges in multiple VLANs, and (3) a single spanning tree in each VLAN limits route selection and requires manual rebalancing and updating to adjust to shifts in network load.

SEATTLE in turn addresses all of these problems. It maintains MAC-IP and MAC-location mappings using a one-hop DHT. This information is hashed onto switches using consistent hashing to reduce re-hashing overhead when a switch fails and keys must be remapped. Among switches, a link-state routing protocol allows routing between switches along the shortest path. SEATTLE allows for the creation of virtual switches for load balancing i.e. more powerful switches can have more virtual switches and thus a higher load. Also, the DHT can be used to store information about various network services or attributes, such as printers and servers, by hashing a descriptor of that service along with its location or other information. SEATTLE can also be configured to use a multi-level one-hop DHT to run over hierarchical networks with several regions connected by backbones. In this case, separate regional and backbone hash rings are maintained. SEATTLE is backwards compatible with end hosts using conventional Ethernet. SEATTLE also allows for the definition of groups, which is defined as a set of hosts that share the same broadcast domain. This is important for backward compatibility with conventional Ethernet and also facilitates the implementation of reachability policies.

The paper then provides results of several simulations using four topologies that the authors consider representative. They measure SEATTLE’s sensitivity to cache eviction timeouts, network changes, host mobility, switch failure, the forwarding table size, its control overhead, and compare it with other approaches. They describe a prototype implementation of SEATTLE.

Critique

I liked this paper. There was quite a bit of time between me reading it and writing the summary so I can’t remember specific criticisms or points I wanted to make about it. They did a good job of explaining what was wrong with current solutions and I liked how they addressed each of these problems. One thing that confused me in their simulations is that they said they leveraged real network traces and supplemented them with synthetic traces, but I must not understand fully how these are used because it seems like once you have a different building block (SEATTLE in place of Ethernet) that alters the trace so a sequence of events in the original trace might no longer make sense if you are assuming you are using SEATTLE instead. One thing I liked about their simulations is that, unlike in many of the other papers we’ve read, at least their simulation networks were big. I feel like a lot of other experiments that use topologies with only a handful of hosts are not as interesting, although in many cases there is probably nothing wrong with evaluating in this way.