<p>Network Functions (NFs) are responsible for ensuring security in the network, optimizing data traffic and balancing network load. NFs are chained to form Service Function Chains (SFCs). Flows may need to be migrated from a subset of NF instances (belonging to an SFC instance) to another for scaling out, scaling in, load balancing or software upgrades. When flows are migrated from an NF instance to another, states need to be migrated for the destination NF to function correctly. For the first time, we propose the correctness criteria for migration of a flow from an SFC instance to another. Existing algorithms for flow migration across NF instances require buffering packets. The amount of buffering required is not easily predictable, buffering is vulnerable to overflow attacks and do not tolerate packet bursts well. We propose an algorithm that does not require buffering or loss of packets, but causes reordering, for flow migration across SFC instances and prove its correctness. The reordering that it causes is well managed by recent implementations of TCP, as is borne out by our experiments. Our simulations demonstrate that when a flow is migrated from an SFC instance with 2, 4, 6 and 8 NFs, the worst difference in the mean goodputs of cases with and without flow migration is only <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="10922_2025_9965_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="35" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(3.6\%\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>3.6</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and the best difference is <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="10922_2025_9965_Article_IEq2.gif" Format="GIF" Height="16" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="35" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(0.1\%\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <mrow> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. Moreover, the implementations of NFs that are resistant to packet reordering strengthen our case.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Flow Migration for Service Function Chains: Correctness Criteria and Their Relaxation

  • Ranjan Patowary,
  • Gautam Barua,
  • Radhika Sukapuram

摘要

Network Functions (NFs) are responsible for ensuring security in the network, optimizing data traffic and balancing network load. NFs are chained to form Service Function Chains (SFCs). Flows may need to be migrated from a subset of NF instances (belonging to an SFC instance) to another for scaling out, scaling in, load balancing or software upgrades. When flows are migrated from an NF instance to another, states need to be migrated for the destination NF to function correctly. For the first time, we propose the correctness criteria for migration of a flow from an SFC instance to another. Existing algorithms for flow migration across NF instances require buffering packets. The amount of buffering required is not easily predictable, buffering is vulnerable to overflow attacks and do not tolerate packet bursts well. We propose an algorithm that does not require buffering or loss of packets, but causes reordering, for flow migration across SFC instances and prove its correctness. The reordering that it causes is well managed by recent implementations of TCP, as is borne out by our experiments. Our simulations demonstrate that when a flow is migrated from an SFC instance with 2, 4, 6 and 8 NFs, the worst difference in the mean goodputs of cases with and without flow migration is only \(3.6\%\) 3.6 % and the best difference is \(0.1\%\) 0.1 % . Moreover, the implementations of NFs that are resistant to packet reordering strengthen our case.