This whitepaper proposes OpenFlow: a way for researchers to run experimental protocols in the networks they use every day. OpenFlow is based on an Ethernet switch, with an internal flow-table, and a standardized interface to add and remove flow entries. Our goal is to encourage networking vendors to add OpenFlow to their switch products for deployment in college campus backbones and wiring closets. We believe that OpenFlow is a pragmatic compromise: on one hand, it allows researchers to run experiments on heterogeneous switches in a uniform way at line-rate and with high port-density; while on the other hand, vendors do not need to expose the internal workings of their switches. In addition to allowing researchers to evaluate their ideas in real-world traffic settings, OpenFlow could serve as a useful campus component in proposed large-scale testbeds like GENI. Two buildings at Stanford University will soon run OpenFlow networks, using commercial Ethernet switches and routers. We will work to encourage deployment at other schools; and We encourage you to consider deploying OpenFlow in your university network too

No abstract

Present-day Internet protocol routers typically employ monolithic operating systems that are not easily upgradable and extensible. With the rapid rate of protocol development it is becoming increasingly important to dynamically upgrade router software in an incremental fashion. We have designed and implemented a high-performance, modular, extended services router software architecture in the Net BSD operating system kernel. This architecture allows code modules, called plugins, to be dynamically added and configured at run time. One of the novel features of our design is the ability to bind different plugins to individual flows; this allows for distinct plugin implementations to seamlessly coexist in the same runtime environment. We achieve high performance through a carefully designed modular architecture, an innovative packet classification algorithm that is highly efficient, and by caching that exploits the flow-like characteristics of Internet traffic. Compared to a monolithic best effort kernel, our implementation requires an average increase in packet processing overhead of only 8%, or 600 cycles per packet when running on an Intel Pentium Pro at 233 MHz. By shortcutting the forward loop based on the per-flow state we establish, we can forward packets up to three times faster than the best effort kernel.

SLICED PROGRAMMABLE NETWORKSOpenFlow [4] has been demonstrated as a way for researchers to run networking experiments in their production network. Last year, we demonstrated how an OpenFlow controller running on NOX [3] could move VMs seamlessly around an OpenFlow network [1]. While OpenFlow has potential [2] to open control of the network, only one researcher can innovate on the network at a time. What is required is a way to divide, or slice, network resources so that researchers and network administrators can use them in parallel. Network slicing implies that actions in one slice do not negatively affect other slices, even if they share the same underlying physical hardware. A common network slicing technique is VLANs. With VLANs, the administrator partitions the network by switch port and all traffic is mapped to a VLAN by input port or explicit tag. This coarse-grained type of network slicing complicates more interesting experiments such as IP mobility or wireless handover.Here, we demonstrate FlowVisor, a special purpose OpenFlow controller that allows multiple researchers to run experiments safely and independently on the same production OpenFlow network. To motivate FlowVisor's flexibility, we demonstrate four network slices running in parallel: one slice for the production network and three slices running experimental code (Figure 1). Our demonstration runs on real network hardware deployed on our production network 1 at Stanford and a wide-area test-bed with a mix of wired and wireless technologies.