SDN in the Management Plane: OpenConfig and Streaming Telemetry
22 likes7,305 views
The document discusses the challenges and opportunities in managing large-scale networks, particularly focusing on developing a programmable management plane using model-driven management and streaming telemetry. It emphasizes the need for vendor-neutral APIs and efficient data models, such as those developed by the OpenConfig community, to streamline network operations and enhance monitoring capabilities. A shift away from traditional SNMP towards modern telemetry solutions is proposed to ensure scalability and real-time data access, addressing the growing complexity of network management.
SDN in the Management Plane: OpenConfig and Streaming Telemetry
- 1. Better management of large-scale, heterogeneous networks toward a programmable management plane Joshua George, Anees Shaikh Google Network Operations www.openconfig.net
- 2. Management plane challenges Rethinking telemetry -- efficient, large-scale monitoring OpenConfig -- community-driven API development3 2 1 Agenda 2
- 4. Challenges of managing a large-scale network ● more than 8M OIDs collected every 5 minutes ● more than 20K CLI commands issued and scraped every 5 minutes ● many tools, and multiple generations of software Opportunity for significant OPEX savings: reduced outage impact, simplification of management stack, better scaling 4 ● 20+ network device roles ● more than half dozen vendors, multiple platforms ● 4M lines of configuration files ● up to ~30K configuration changes per month
- 5. Management plane is way behind ● proprietary CLIs, lots of scripts ● imperative, incremental configuration ● lack of abstractions ● configuration scraping from devices ● SNMP monitoring -- not always “simple” and not often scalable 5
- 6. Configuration • describes configuration data structure and content • common modeling language: YANG • multiple data encodings: protobuf, XML, JSON, ... Topology • describes structure of the network • common modeling language: multiple • data encoding: protobuf, ... Telemetry • describes monitoring data structure and attributes • common modeling language: exploring YANG • data delivery: RPC, protobuf inside UDP Model-driven network management 6
- 8. Telemetry solutions today What do we use? Often SNMP is the default choice. ● legacy implementations -- designed for limited processing and bandwidth ● expensive discoverability -- re-walk MIBs to discover new elements ● no capability advertisement -- test OIDs to determine support ● rigid structure -- limited extensibility to add new data ● proprietary data -- require vendor-specific mappings and multiple requests to reassemble data ● protocol stagnation -- no absorption of current data modeling and transmission techniques 8
- 9. Telemetry challenges ● SNMP object collection growing with each platform generation ○ e.g., 100K objects on current platforms, expected to grow 3x over next 2 generations ○ similar for object collection frequency ● Future devices continue to grow in density and drive this trend ○ scale limitations in data acquisition at high frequencies ● Near-real-time acquisition and access to monitoring data is a requirement for <insert buzzword here> ○ traffic management, tight control loops, fast recovery 9
- 10. I get it, you really don’t like SNMP… 10 but do you have a better idea?
- 11. Rethinking telemetry...reverse the flow ○ stream data continuously -- with incremental updates based on subscriptions ○ observe network state through a time-series data stream ○ devices programmed with a data model describing desired structure and content ○ efficient, secure transport protocols 11
- 12. Telemetry framework requirements ● network elements stream data to collectors (push model) ● data populated based on vendor-neutral models whenever possible ● utilize a publish/subscribe API to select desired data ● scale for next 10 years of density growth with high data freshness ○ other protocols distribute load to hardware, so should telemetry ● utilize modern transport mechanisms with active development communities ○ gRPC (HTTP/2), Thrift, etc. ○ protocol buffer over UDP 12
- 13. Example telemetry configuration flow 13 Network Management System Structured inventory and set of telemetry capabilities pushed to the NMS Rules for typical monitoring Tactical overrides from operators Generate monitoring configuration Publish to network element gRPC endpoint
- 14. Example telemetry data flow 14 Collection Infrastructure Send statistics every X seconds Asynchronous event reporting Operator requests for ad-hoc data. 3 types of telemetry events: ● Bulk time series data ○ All interface stats every 10 seconds. ● Event/edge driven updates ○ LSP A is now down. ● Operator request/response ○ Show me oper state for all interfaces.gRPC endpoint
- 15. Practical realization ● Streaming telemetry is beyond an idea stage, but is far from a final product ● Multiple vendor implementations now available for experimentation ● Development is ongoing -- now is the time to share your requirements and make your voice heard ! 15
- 16. OpenConfig 16
- 17. OpenConfig ● Informal industry collaboration of network operators ● Focus: define vendor-neutral configuration and operational state models based on real operations ○ Adopted YANG data modeling language (RFC 6020) ● Participants: Apple, AT&T, BT, Comcast, Cox, Facebook, Google Level3, Microsoft, Verizon, Yahoo! ● Primary output is model code, published as open source via public github repo ● Ongoing interactions with standards and open source communities (e.g., IETF, ONF, ODL, ONOS) 17
- 18. Example configuration pipeline configuration data vendor-neutral, validated multiple vendor devices 18 OC YANG models configuration generation gRPC req operators intent API “drain peering link” update topology model gRPC endpoint
- 19. Extending OpenConfig models ● base OpenConfig model as a starting point ● vendors can offer augmentations / deviations ● operators can add locally consumed extensions base model X vendor modifications local modifications extended model 19
- 20. OpenConfig releases and roadmap Data models (configuration and operational state) ● BGP and routing policy ○ multiple vendor implementations in progress ● MPLS / TE consolidated model ○ RSVP / TE and segment routing model as initial focus ● design patterns for operational state and model composition ● tools for translating YANG models to usable code artifacts ○ e.g., pyangbind 20 Models in progress ● interfaces, system, optical transport, ...
- 21. Models must be composed to be useful ● model composition framework is critical missing piece from existing model-building efforts 21
- 22. Modeling operational state 22 Types of operational state data ● derived, negotiated, set by a protocol, etc. (negotiated BGP hold-time) ● operational state data for counters or statistics (interface counters) ● operational state data representing intended configuration (actual vs. configured) Clear benefits from using YANG to model both configuration and operational state in the same data model ● but … YANG focus has primarily been config, NETCONF-centric, lack of common conventions
- 23. Summary ● New networking paradigms like SDN focus mostly on control ○ it’s time for the management plane to join the age of SDN ● Core principles: ○ model-driven management ○ streaming telemetry to scale monitoring and improve freshness ○ vendor-neutral, extensible APIs for managing devices ● Architecture and emerging vendor implementations of multi- mode telemetry solutions ● OpenConfig is a focused effort by operators to develop vendor- neutral models to define management APIs 23 Operators: get involved and push your vendors for support on your gear!
- 24. thank you !
- 25. gRPC: multi-platform RPC framework gRPC features ● load-balancing, app-level flow control, call-cancellation ● serialization with protobuf (efficient wire encoding) ● multi-platform, many supported languages ● open source, under active development gRPC leverages HTTP/2 as its transport layer ● binary framing, header compression ● bidirectional streams, server push support ● connection multiplexing across requests and streams 25 http://grpc.io
- 26. OpenConfig and standards (e.g., IETF) ● primary goal is native implementation of OpenConfig models ○ OpenConfig is not a standards group ● publish models and documentation in IETF to inject operator perspective into standards process ● adoption of OpenConfig models and ideas into standards can simplify development efforts for vendors 26
- 27. Additional “observations” ● YANG and NETCONF should be decoupled -- each are independently useful ● YANG needs to evolve more rapidly at this early phase, stabilize as real usage increases ● current YANG model versioning is not helpful -- treat models like software artifacts, not dated documents ● current standard models should be open for revisiting and revising ● should not rush to standardize more models until they are deployed and used in production 27 these are not necessarily OpenConfig consensus views
- 28. Current OpenConfig “process” ● initial models developed by OpenConfig ● extensive collaboration with vendors ● leverage existing work where possible ● publish models and docs 28
- 29. Intent-based configuration flow abstract configuration models Config Model Topology Model configuration intent operators declarative API configurationflow configuration pusher NETCONF, RESTCONF, JSON-RPC, ... ... authoritative config store config generation device-level configuration standard models vendor-neutral configuration models generated configuration instances config generation authoritative config storeapplication NB APIs Network OS SB protocols analagous SDN stack 29
- 30. Telemetry required for a full solution ● Popular network technology topics today focus on more granular control of network traffic decisions. ○ APIs, RPC frameworks, agents, controllers, overlays… ● Developing an awesome method to control network elements is only half of the solution. ● Data accuracy and freshness are limiting factors in a control solution’s optimality. 30