Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Background
Secure Network Datalog
References

Recent Advances in Declarative Networking

Profile image of Harjot GillHarjot Gill

2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27694-1_1
visibility

…

description

17 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Declarative networking is a programming methodology that enables developers to concisely specify network protocols and services, and directly compile these specifications into a dataflow framework for execution. This paper describes recent advances in declarative networking, tracing its evolution from a rapid prototyping framework towards a platform that serves as an important bridge connecting formal theories for reasoning about protocol correctness and actual implementations. In particular, the paper focuses on the use of declarative networking for addressing four main challenges in the distributed systems development cycle: the generation of safe routing implementations, debugging, security and privacy, and optimizing distributed systems.

Related papers

Declarative routing
Ion Stoica

ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2005

The Internet's core routing infrastructure, while arguably robust and efficient, has proven to be difficult to evolve to accommodate the needs of new applications. Prior research on this problem has included new hard-coded routing protocols on the one hand, and fully extensible Active Networks on the other. In this paper, we explore a new point in this design space that aims to strike a better balance between the extensibility and robustness of a routing infrastructure. The basic idea of our solution, which we call declarative routing , is to express routing protocols using a database query language. We show that our query language is a natural fit for routing, and can express a variety of well-known routing protocols in a compact and clean fashion. We discuss the security of our proposal in terms of its computational expressive power and language design. Via simulation, and deployment on PlanetLab, we demonstrate that our system imposes no fundamental limits relative to traditi...

View PDFchevron_right
Eliminating network protocol vulnerabilities through abstraction and systems language design
Jasson Casey, Gabriel Menegatti Reis

2013 21st IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), 2013

Incorrect implementations of network protocol message specifications affect the stability, security, and cost of network system development. Most implementation defects fall into one of three categories of well defined message constraints. However, the general process of constructing network protocol stacks and systems does not capture these categorical constraints. We introduce a systems programming language with new abstractions that capture these constraints. Safe and efficient implementations of standard message handling operations are synthesized by our compiler, and whole-program analysis is used to ensure constraints are never violated. We present language examples using the OpenFlow protocol.

View PDFchevron_right
A declarative approach to distributed computing: Specification, execution and analysis
Alessandra Russo

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2013

There is an increasing interest in using logic programming to specify and implement distributed algorithms, including a variety of network applications. These are applications where data and computation are distributed among several devices and where, in principle, all the devices can exchange data and share the computational results of the group. In this paper we propose a declarative approach to distributed computing whereby distributed algorithms and communication models can be (i) specified as action theories of fluents and actions; (ii) executed as collections of distributed state machines, where devices are abstracted as (input/output) automata that can exchange messages; and (iii) analysed using existing results on connecting causal theories and Answer Set Programming. Results on the application of our approach to different classes of network protocols are also presented.

View PDFchevron_right
Language Abstractions for Software-Defined Networks
farah slim
View PDFchevron_right
Domain specific languages (DSLs) for network protocols (position paper)
Kevin Hammond

2009

Abstract Next generation network architectures will benefit from the many years of practical experience that have been gained in designing, using and operating network protocols. Over time, the networking community has gradually improved its understanding of networked systems in terms of architecture, design, engineering and testing.

View PDFchevron_right
Specification and prototyping of network protocols in rewriting logic
Sigurd Meldal

1998

View PDFchevron_right
Unified Development and Deployment of Network Protocols
Daniel Mahrenholz

2005

In this paper we describe GEA- an interface that enables the development of event-driven network protocols, their testing in a simulated network and deployment using a single, unmod- ified code. Normally testing and deployment requires separated implementations which results in a significant development and maintenance overhead. This is due to the different APIs of the underlying systems. As a solution to this problem we propose a common, generic event based interface called GEA. We present its design principles and show by example how to implement a network protocols with it. Finally we compare the execution of the protocol implementation in both environments to show the effectiveness of our approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Building Correct SDN-Based Components from a Global Formal Mode
J. Christian Attiogbé

Cornell University - arXiv, 2018

Software Defined Networking (SDN) brings flexibility in the construction and managment of distributed applications by reducing the constraints imposed by physical networks and by moving the control of networks closer to the applications. However mastering SDN still poses numerous challenges among which the design of correct SDN components (more specifically controller and switches). In this work we use a formal stepwise approach to model and reason on SDN. Although formal approaches have already been used in this area, this contribution is the first state-based approach; it is based on the Event-B formal method, and it enables a correct-by-construction of SDN components. We provide the steps to build, using several refinements, a global formal model of a SDN system; correct SDN components are then systematically built from the global formal model satisfying the desired properties. Event-B is used to experiment the approach.

View PDFchevron_right
Lightweight Formal Methods for the Development of High-Assurance Networking Systems (Extended Abstract for an Invited Talk at VECoS 2009)
Assaf Kfoury
View PDFchevron_right
Protocol boosters: applying programmability to network infrastructures
Jonathan Smith

IEEE Communications Magazine, 1998

t the heart of the success and power of the worldwide IP Internet are the general-purpose protocols in the TCP/IP protocol suite. Although these protocols, such as TCP and IP, provide a flexible framework for building diverse applications, two limitations can be seen precisely because of their success and generality. First, they evolve more slowly than the changes in networking technology and application requirements. Second, they trade some loss in efficiency for their ability to handle increased heterogeneity.

View PDFchevron_right

References (62)

  1. VID5=SHA1("pathCost"+a+c+5) sp2@b RID3=SHA1("sp2"+b+VID2+VID6) bestPathCost(@b,c,2)
  2. @b RID1=SHA1("sp1"+b+VID1) sp1@a RID2=SHA1("sp1"+a+VID3)
  3. @b RID4=SHA1("sp3"+b+VID4) References
  4. Gecode constraint development environment. http://www.gecode.org/.
  5. PVS Specification and Verification System. http://pvs.csl.sri.com/.
  6. RapidNet. http://netdb.cis.upenn.edu/rapidnet/.
  7. P. Alvaro, T. Condie, N. Conway, K. Elmeleegy, J. M. Hellerstein, and R. Sears. Boom Analytics: Exploring Data-Centric, Declarative Programming for the Cloud. In Proceedings of Eurosys, 2010.
  8. P. Alvaro, W. Marczak, N. Conway, J. M. Hellerstein, D. Maier, and R. C. Sears. Dedalus: Datalog in time and space. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2009-173, EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley, Dec 2009.
  9. T. J. Ameloot, F. Neven, and J. Van den Bussche. Relational Transducers for Declarative Networking. In PODS, 2011.
  10. Application Aware Anonymity. http://a3.cis.upenn.edu/.
  11. H. Balakrishnan, M. F. Kaashoek, D. Karger, R. Morris, and I. Stoica. Looking Up Data in P2P Systems. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2003.
  12. I. Balbin and K. Ramamohanarao. A Generalization of the Differential Approach to Recursive Query Evaluation. Journal of Logic Prog, 4(3):259-262, 1987.
  13. X. Chen, Y. Mao, Z. M. Mao, and J. van der Merwe. Declarative Configuration Management for Complex and Dynamic Networks. In CoNEXT, 2010.
  14. D. C. Chu, L. Popa, A. Tavakoli, J. M. Hellerstein, P. Levis, S. Shenker, and I. Stoica. The Design and Implementation of a Declarative Sensor Network System. In 5th ACM Conference on Embedded networked Sensor Systems (SenSys), 2007.
  15. J. DeTreville. Binder: A logic-based security language. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2002.
  16. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics For Logic Programming. In ICLP/SLP, pages 1070-1080, 1988.
  17. H. Gill, T. Saeed, Q. Fei, Z. Zhang, and B. T. Loo. An Open-source and Declarative Approach Towards Teaching Large-scale Networked Systems Programming. In SIGCOMM Education Workshop, 2011.
  18. D. Goldschlag, M. Reed, and P. Syverson. Onion Routing. Communications of the ACM, 42(2):39-41, 1999.
  19. T. G. Griffin and J. L. Sobrinho. Metarouting. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2005.
  20. A. Gupta, I. S. Mumick, and V. S. Subrahmanian. Maintaining Views Incremen- tally. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1993.
  21. Hadoop. http://hadoop.apache.org/.
  22. J. M. Hellerstein. Declarative imperative: Experiences and conjectures in dis- tributed logic. 2010. SIGMOD Record 39(1).
  23. T. Jim. SD3: A Trust Management System With Certified Evaluation. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2001.
  24. E. Kohler, R. Morris, B. Chen, J. Jannotti, and M. F. Kaashoek. The Click Modular Router. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 18(3):263-297, 2000.
  25. N. Li, B. N. Grosof, and J. Feigenbaum. Delegation Logic: A logic-based approach to distributed authorization. ACM TISSEC, 2003.
  26. C. Liu, R. Correa, H. Gill, T. Gill, X. Li, S. Muthukumar, T. Saeed, B. T. Loo, and P. Basu. PUMA: Policy-based Unified Multi-radio Architecture for Agile Mesh Networking. In 4th International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), 2012.
  27. C. Liu, R. Correa, X. Li, P. Basu, B. T. Loo, and Y. Mao. Declarative policy- based adaptive mobile ad hoc networking. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (ToN), 2011.
  28. C. Liu, B. T. Loo, and Y. Mao. Declarative Automated Cloud Resource Orches- tration. In ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (SOCC), 2011.
  29. B. T. Loo, T. Condie, M. Garofalakis, D. E. Gay, J. M. Hellerstein, P. Maniatis, R. Ramakrishnan, T. Roscoe, and I. Stoica. Declarative Networking: Language, Execution and Optimization. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Con- ference on Management of Data, 2006.
  30. B. T. Loo, T. Condie, M. Garofalakis, D. E. Gay, J. M. Hellerstein, P. Maniatis, R. Ramakrishnan, T. Roscoe, and I. Stoica. Declarative Networking. In Commu- nications of the ACM (CACM), 2009.
  31. B. T. Loo, T. Condie, J. M. Hellerstein, P. Maniatis, T. Roscoe, and I. Stoica. Im- plementing Declarative Overlays. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2005.
  32. B. T. Loo, J. M. Hellerstein, and I. Stoica. Customizable Routing with Declarative Queries. In ACM SIGCOMM Hot Topics in Networks, 2004.
  33. B. T. Loo, J. M. Hellerstein, I. Stoica, and R. Ramakrishnan. Declarative Routing: Extensible Routing with Declarative Queries. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication, 2005.
  34. Y. Mao. On the declarativity of declarative networking. In ACM NetDB Workshop, 2009.
  35. Y. Mao, B. T. Loo, Z. Ives, and J. M. Smith. MOSAIC: Unified Platform for Dynamic Overlay Selection and Composition. In CoNEXT, 2008.
  36. W. R. Marczak, S. S. Huang, M. Bravenboer, M. Sherr, B. T. Loo, and M. Aref. SecureBlox: Customizable Secure Distributed Data Processing. In SIGMOD, 2010.
  37. W. R. Marczak, D. Zook, W. Zhou, M. Aref, and B. T. Loo. Declarative Recon- figurable Trust Management. In Proceedings of Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), 2009.
  38. Mengmeng Liu and Nicholas Taylor and Wenchao Zhou and Zachary Ives and Boon Thau Loo. Recursive Computation of Regions and Connectivity in Networks. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2009.
  39. S. C. Muthukumar, X. Li, C. Liu, J. B. Kopena, M. Oprea, R. Correa, B. T. Loo, and P. Basu. RapidMesh: declarative toolkit for rapid experimentation of wireless mesh networks. In WINTECH, 2009.
  40. S. C. Muthukumar, X. Li, C. Liu, J. B. Kopena, M. Oprea, and B. T. Loo. Declar- ative toolkit for rapid network protocol simulation and experimentation. In SIG- COMM (demo), 2009.
  41. NetDB@Penn. http://netdb.cis.upenn.edu/.
  42. Network Simulator 3. http://www.nsnam.org/.
  43. V. Nigam, L. Jia, B. T. Loo, and A. Scedrov. Maintaining distributed logic pro- grams incrementally. In 13th International ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Prin- ciples and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP), 2011.
  44. F. Perich. Policy-based Network Management for NeXt Generation Spectrum Ac- cess Control. In DySPAN, 2007.
  45. PlanetLab. Global testbed. http://www.planet-lab.org/.
  46. Quagga Routing Suite. http://www.quagga.net/.
  47. R. Ramakrishnan and J. D. Ullman. A Survey of Research on Deductive Database Systems. Journal of Logic Programming, 23(2):125-149, 1993.
  48. RapidNet Declarative Networking Engine. http://netdb.cis.upenn.edu/ rapidnet/.
  49. Y. Ren, W. Zhou, A. Wang, L. Jia, A. J. Gurney, B. T. Loo, and J. Rexford. FSR: Formal Analysis and Implementation Toolkit for Safe Inter-domain Routing. In ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Data Communication (demonstration), 2011.
  50. D. Saccà and C. Zaniolo. Stable Models and Non-Determinism in Logic Programs with Negation. In PODS, pages 205-217, 1990.
  51. Secure BGP. http://www.ir.bbn.com/sbgp/.
  52. M. Sherr, A. Mao, W. R. Marczak, W. Zhou, B. T. Loo, and M. Blaze. A3: An Extensible Platform for Application-Aware Anonymity. In Network and Distributed System Security, 2010.
  53. A. Singh, T. Das, P. Maniatis, P. Druschel, and T. Roscoe. BFT Protocols Under Fire. In USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, 2008.
  54. A. Wang, P. Basu, B. T. Loo, and O. Sokolsky. Towards declarative network verification. In 11th International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL), 2009.
  55. A. Wang, L. Jia, W. Zhou, Y. Ren, B. T. Loo, J. Rexford, V. Nigam, A. Scedrov, and C. Talcott. FSR: Formal analysis and implementation toolkit for safe inter- domain routing. University of Pennsylvania CIS Technical Report No. MS-CIS- 11-10, 2011, http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/954/.
  56. Yices. http://yices.csl.sri.com/.
  57. W. Zhou, L. Ding, A. Haeberlen, Z. Ives, and B. T. Loo. Tap: Time-aware prove- nance for distributed systems. In 3rd USENIX Workshop on the Theory and Prac- tice of Provenance (TaPP '11), 2011.
  58. W. Zhou, Q. Fei, A. Narayan, A. Haeberlen, B. T. Loo, and M. Sherr. Secure network provenance. In Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2011.
  59. W. Zhou, Q. Fei, S. Sun, T. Tao, A. Haeberlen, Z. Ives, B. T. Loo, and M. Sherr. Nettrails: A declarative platform for provenance maintenance and querying in dis- tributed systems. In SIGMOD (demonstration), 2011.
  60. W. Zhou, Y. Mao, B. T. Loo, and M. Abadi. Unified Declarative Platform for Secure Networked Information Systems. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2009.
  61. W. Zhou, M. Sherr, T. Tao, X. Li, B. T. Loo, and Y. Mao. Efficient querying and maintenance of network provenance at Internet-scale. In Proc. SIGMOD, 2010.
  62. W. Zhou, O. Sokolsky, B. T. Loo, and I. Lee. Dmac: Distributed monitoring and checking. In 9th International Workshop on Runtime Verification (RV), 2009.

Related papers

Operational semantics for declarative networking
Juan Antonio Navarro Pérez

2009

Declarative Networking has been recently promoted as a high-level programming paradigm to more conveniently describe and implement systems that run in a distributed fashion over a computer network. It has already been used to implement various networked systems, eg, network overlays, Byzantine fault tolerance protocols, and distributed hash tables. Declarative Networking relies upon a rule-based programming language that resembles Datalog and allows one to declaratively specify the flow of networking events.

View PDFchevron_right
Declarative networking
Ion Stoica

Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 2006

The networking and distributed systems communities have recently explored a variety of new network architectures, both for applicationlevel overlay networks, and as prototypes for a next-generation Internet architecture. In this context, we have investigated declarative networking: the use of a distributed recursive query engine as a powerful vehicle for accelerating innovation in network architectures [23, 24, 33]. Declarative networking represents a significant new application area for database research on recursive query processing. In this paper, we address fundamental database issues in this domain. First, we motivate and formally define the Network Datalog (NDlog) language for declarative network specifications. Second, we introduce and prove correct relaxed versions of the traditional semi-naïve query evaluation technique, to overcome fundamental problems of the traditional technique in an asynchronous distributed setting. Third, we consider the dynamics of network state, and formalize the "eventual consistency" of our programs even when bursts of updates can arrive in the midst of query execution. Fourth, we present a number of query optimization opportunities that arise in the declarative networking context, including applications of traditional techniques as well as new optimizations. Last, we present evaluation results of the above ideas implemented in our P2 declarative networking system, running on 100 machines over the Emulab network testbed.

View PDFchevron_right
Cardinality abstraction for declarative networking applications
Juan Antonio Navarro Pérez

2009

Abstract. Declarative Networking is a recent, viable approach to make distributed programming easier, which is becoming increasingly popular in systems and networking community. It offers the programmer a declarative, rule-based language, called P2, for writing distributed applications in an abstract, yet expressive way. This approach, however, imposes new challenges on analysis and verification methods when they are applied to P2 programs.

View PDFchevron_right
A Theorem Proving Approach Towards Declarative Networking
O. Sokolsky

2009

We present the DRIVER system for designing, analyzing and implementing network protocols. DRIVER leverages declarative networking, a recent innovation that enables network protocols to be concisely specified and implemented using declarative languages. DRIVER takes as input declarative networking specifications written in the Network Datalog (NDlog) query language, and maps that automatically into logical specifications that can be directly used in existing theorem provers to validate protocol correctness. As an alternative approach, network designer can supply a component-based model of their routing design, automatically generate PVS specifications for verification and subsequent compilation into verified declarative network implementations. We demonstrate the use of DRIVER for synthesizing and verifying a variety of well-known network routing protocols.

View PDFchevron_right
Declarative Transport: No more transport protocols to design, only policies to specify
John Day

2008

Transport protocols are an integral part of the inter-process communication (IPC) service used by application processes to communicate over the network infrastructure. With almost 30 years of research on transport, one would have hoped that we have a good handle on the problem. Unfortunately, that is not true. As the Internet continues to grow, new network technologies and new applications continue to emerge putting transport protocols in a never-ending flux as they are continuously adapted for these new environments. In this work, we propose a clean-slate transport architecture that renders all possible transport solutions as simply combinations of policies instantiated on a single common structure. We identify a minimal set of mechanisms that once instantiated with the appropriate policies allows any transport solution to be realized. Given our proposed architecture, we contend that there are no more transport protocols to design-only policies to specify. We implement our transport architecture in a declarative language, Network Datalog (NDlog), making the specification of different transport policies easy, compact, reusable, dynamically configurable and potentially verifiable. In NDlog, transport state is represented as database relations, state is updated/queried using database operations, and transport policies are specified using declarative rules. We identify limitations with NDlog that could potentially threaten the correctness of our specification. We propose several language extensions to NDlog that would significantly improve the programmability of transport policies.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved