The Design and Implementation
of Declarative Networks
Boon Thau Loo
University of Pennsylvania, University of California-Berkeley*
*This dissertation was completed as a graduate student at the
University of California- Berkeley
Declarative Networking
A declarative framework for networks:


Network protocols are declaratively specified using a
database query language
Distributed query engine executes specifications to
implement network protocols
Success of database research:


70’s – today: Database research has revolutionized
data management
Today: Similar opportunity to revolutionize the
Internet architecture
Motivation
Internet faces many challenges today:



Unwanted, harmful traffic
Complexity/fragility in Internet routing
Proliferation of new applications and services
Efforts at improving the Internet:


Evolutionary: App-level “Overlay” networks
Revolutionary: Clean-slate designs
 NSF GENI initiative, FIND program
Opportunity: Software tools that can
significantly accelerate network innovation
A Declarative Network
messages
Dataflow
Dataflow
messages
Dataflow
Dataflow
messages
Dataflow
Distributed
recursive query
Dataflow
Traditional Networks
Network State
Network protocol
Network messages
Declarative Networks
Distributed database
Recursive Query Execution
Distributed Dataflow
The Case for Declarative Networking
Ease of programming:


Compact and high-level representation of protocols
Orders of magnitude reduction in code size
 Declarative Chord DHT is 48 lines instead of 10,000.

Easy customization
Safety:


Queries are “sandboxed” within query processor
Potential for static analysis of safety
What about efficiency?



No fundamental overhead when executing standard routing
protocols
Application of well-studied query optimizations
Note: Same question was asked of relational databases in the 70’s.
Main Contributions of Dissertation
Declarative Routing [SIGCOMM ’05]:

Extensible Routers: balance of flexibility, efficiency
and safety
Declarative Overlays [SOSP ’05]:

Rapid prototyping of new overlay networks
Database Fundamentals [SIGMOD ‘06]:



Network specific query language and semantics
Distributed recursive query execution strategies
Query optimizations, classical and new
A Breadth of Use Cases
Example implementations to date:










Textbook routing protocols
Chord DHT
Narada mesh for end-system multicast
Distributed Gnutella/Web crawlers
Pastry DHT
Replication protocols
Lamport/Chandy snapshots
Paxos distributed consensus
Overlays for host mobility
Sensor network protocols
P2 declarative networking system

http://p2.cs.berkeley.edu
Outline
Background
The Connection: Routing as a Query


Execution Model
Path-Vector Protocol Example
 Query specification  protocol implementation
Query Processing
Beyond routing: Declarative Overlays
Ongoing work @ Penn
Traditional Router
Routing
Protocol
Control Plane
Neighbor Table Forwarding
updates
Table updates
Forwarding Plane
Neighbor Table
Forwarding Table
Packets
Routing
Infrastructure
Packets
Traditional Router
Declarative Router
Query Engine
Declarative
Queries
Control Plane
Routing
Protocol
Input
Tables
Output
Tables
Neighbor Table Forwarding
updates
Table updates
Forwarding Plane
Neighbor Table
Forwarding Table
Packets
Routing
Infrastructure
Packets
Declarative
Traditional Router
Router
All-Pairs Reachability
R1: reachable(S,D)  link(S,D)
R2: reachable(S,D)  link(S,Z), reachable(Z,D)
“For all nodes
S,D, is a link from node a to node b”
link(a,b)
– “there
If there is a link from S to D, then S can reach D”.
reachable(a,b) – “node a can reach node b”
Input: link(source, destination)
Output: reachable(source, destination)
All-Pairs Reachability
R1: reachable(S,D)  link(S,D)
R2: reachable(S,D)  link(S,Z), reachable(Z,D)
“For all nodes S,D and Z,
If there is a link from S to Z, AND Z can reach D, then S
can reach D”.
Input: link(source, destination)
Output: reachable(source, destination)
Towards Network Datalog
Specify tuple placement

Value-based partitioning of tables
Tuples to be combined are co-located

Rule rewrite ensures body is always single-site
All communication is among neighbors


No multihop routing during basic rule execution
Link-restricted rules: Enforced via simple syntactic
restrictions
Network Datalog
Location
Specifier “@S”
R1: reachable(@S,D)  link(@S,D)
R2: reachable(@S,D)  link(@S,Z), reachable(@Z,D)
Query: reachable(@a,N)
reachable(@M,N)
link
Input table:
Output table:
All-Pairs Reachability
link
link
link
@S
D
@S
D
@S
D
@S
D
@a
b
@b
c
@c
b
@d
c
@b
a
@c
d
a
b
c
d
reachable
reachable
reachable
reachable
@S
D
@a
b
@a
c
@b
c
@a
d
@b
d
@S
D
@S
D
@S
D
@b a
Query: reachable(@a,N)
@c
a
@d
a
@c
b
@d
b
@c
d
@d
c
Path Vector in Network Datalog
R1: path(@S,D,P)  link(@S,D), P=(S,D).
R2: path(@S,D,P)  link(@Z,S), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Query: path(@S,D,P)
Add S to front of P2
Input: link(@source, destination)
Query output: path(@source, destination, pathVector)
Query Execution
R1: path(@S,D,P)  link(@S,D), P=(S,D).
R2: path(@S,D,P)  link(@Z,S), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Query: path(@a,d,P)
link
Neighbor
table:
link
D
@S
D
@S
D
@S
D
@a
b
@b
c
@c
b
@d
c
@b
a
@c
d
path
@S
link
@S
a
Forwarding
table:
link
D
P
@S
b
c
path
path
D
P
d
@S
D
P
@c
d
[c,d]
Query Execution
R1: path(@S,D,P)  link(@S,D), P=(S,D).
R2: path(@S,D,P)  link(@Z,S), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Query: path(@a,d,P)
Matching variable Z = “Join”
link
Neighbor
@S D
table:Communication
@a b
link
@S
link
D
link
@S
patterns
are
identical
to
@b c
@c b
@d
those in the actual
@b path
a
vector
@c protocol
d
a
b
path(@a,d,[a,b,c,d])
path
Forwarding
table:
@S
D
@a
d
@S
PP
[a,b,c,d]
D
c
path(@b,d,[b,c,d])
path
d
path
@S
D
PP
@S
D
P
@b
d
[b,c,d]
@c
d
[c,d]
D
c
Other Routing Examples
Best-Path Routing
Distance Vector
Dynamic Source Routing (Wireless)
Policy Decisions
QoS-based Routing
Link-state
Multicast Overlays (Single-Source & CBT)
Outline
Background
The Connection: Routing as a Query
Query Processing
Beyond routing: Declarative Overlays
Sampling of ongoing work
Recursive Query Evaluation
Semi-naïve evaluation:


Iterations (rounds) of synchronous computation
Results from iteration ith used in (i+1)th
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Link Table
9
7
3-hop
4
8
2-hop
1-hop
Path Table
1
2
5
0
3
6
Network
Problem: Unpredictable delays and failures
10
Pipelined Semi-naïve (PSN)
Fully-asynchronous evaluation:


Computed tuples in any iteration pipelined to next iteration
Natural for network protocols
10
9
6
3
8
5
2
7
4
1
Link Table
Path Table
9
7
4
2
1
5
8
Relaxation
of 0
semi-naïve 3
6
Network
10
Pipelined Evaluation
Challenges:


Does PSN produce the correct answer?
Is PSN bandwidth efficient?
 I.e. does it make the minimum number of
inferences?
Proofs for
p(x,z) :- p1(x,y), p2(y,z), …, pn(y,z), q(z,w)
recursive w.r.t. p

Basic technique: local timestamps
Execution Plan
UDP
Rx
Round
Robin
lookup
Network
Out
CC
Tx
Messages
Queue
Queue
Messages
lookup
CC
Rx
Network
In
Strands
path
...
UDP
Tx
Demux
link
Local Tables
Single Node
Nodes in execution plan (“operators”):



Network operators (send/recv, cc, retry, rate limitation)
Relational operators (selects, projects, joins, aggregates)
Flow operators (mux, demux, queues)
Localization Rewrite
Rules may have body predicates at different locations:
R2: path(@S,D,P)  link(@S,Z), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Matching variable Z = “Join”
Rewritten rules:
R2a: linkD(S,@D)  link(@S,D)
R2b: path(@S,D,P)  linkD(S,@Z), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Matching variable Z = “Join”
Localized Rule Compilation
R2b: path(@S,D,P)  linkD(S,@Z), path(@Z,D,P2), P=SP2.
Execution Plan
Join
path.Z =
linkD.Z
Project
path(S,D,P)
Send to
path.S
linkD
linkD
Join
linkD.Z =
path.Z
path
Project
path(S,D,P)
Send to
path.S
Network Out
Network In
path
Optimizations
Traditional: evaluate in the NW context



Aggregate Selections
Magic Sets rewrite
Predicate Reordering
PV/DV (Wired) 
DSR (Wireless)
New: motivated by NW context

Multi-query optimizations:
 Query Results caching
 Opportunistic message sharing

Cost-based optimizations
 Neighborhood density function
 Hybrid rewrites
Hybridized protocols:
Zone Routing Protocol
Beyond Routing: Declarative Overlays
Language extensions to support
events and soft-state predicates
Chord Routing, including:
 Multiple successors
 Stabilization
 Optimized finger maintenance
 Failure detection
48 rules
11 table definitions
MIT-Chord: x100 more code
Another example:

Narada mesh in 22 rules
10 pt font
Outline
Background
The Connection: Routing as a Query
Query Processing
Beyond routing: Declarative Overlays
Ongoing work @ Penn
Ongoing Work @ Penn
Declarative secure networking




Difficult to design/implement/reason about secure networks
Network Datalog + logic-based security languages [NetDB ’07]
Authenticated path vector protocol, DNSSEC, secure DHTs,…
Moving forward:
 Exploit fine-grained control over networks and security policies
Data-centric querying and routing in heterogeneous
networks


Internet: Wired infrastructure with wireless clouds at the edges
Flexible network support for mobility [ACM MobiArch ’07]
 Declarative queries for addressing and naming mobile hosts
 Session-aware customizable QoS routing

Moving forward:
 Declarative wireless ad-hoc networks
 Cost-based query optimizations to adapt protocols
Summary
Declarative networking:

Declarative Routing:
 Extensible routing infrastructure

Declarative Overlays
 Rapid prototyping overlay networks

Database fundamentals
 Query language
 New distributed query execution strategies and
optimizations
 Semantics in dynamic networks

P2 declarative networking system
(http://p2.cs.berkeley.edu)
Many Thanks…
Advisors: Joseph M. Hellerstein, Ion Stoica
Collaborators:





UC Berkeley: Tyson Condie, Ryan Huebsch
Intel Research: David Gay, Petros Maniatis, Timothy Roscoe
Yahoo! Research: Minos Garofalakis, Raghu Ramakrishnan
Rice University: Atul Singh
Many others…