Home > Articles > Introduction to Controller-Based Networking

Introduction to Controller-Based Networking

Chapter Description

In this sample chapter from CCNA 200-301 Official Cert Guide, Volume 2, you will be introduced to the basic concepts of data and control planes, explore product examples of network programmability using controllers, and compare the benefits of traditional networking with the benefits of controller-based networking.

From the Book

CCNA 200-301 Official Cert Guide, Volume 2

CCNA 200-301 Official Cert Guide, Volume 2

$35.99 (Save 20%)

Examples of Network Programmability and SDN

This second of three major sections of the chapter introduces three different SDN and network programmability solutions available from Cisco. Others exist as well. These three were chosen because they give a wide range of comparison points:

  • OpenDaylight Controller

  • Cisco Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI)

  • Cisco APIC Enterprise Module (APIC-EM)

OpenDaylight and OpenFlow

One common form of SDN comes from the Open Networking Foundation (ONF) and is billed as Open SDN. The ONF (www.opennetworking.org) acts as a consortium of users (operators) and vendors to help establish SDN in the marketplace. Part of that work defines protocols, SBIs, NBIs, and anything that helps people implement their vision of SDN.

The ONF model of SDN features OpenFlow. OpenFlow defines the concept of a controller along with an IP-based SBI between the controller and the network devices. Just as important, OpenFlow defines a standard idea of what a switch’s capabilities are, based on the ASICs and TCAMs commonly used in switches today. (That standardized idea of what a switch does is called a switch abstraction.) An OpenFlow switch can act as a Layer 2 switch, a Layer 3 switch, or in different ways and with great flexibility beyond the traditional model of a Layer 2/3 switch.

The Open SDN model centralizes most control plane functions, with control of the network done by the controller plus any applications that use the controller’s NBIs. In fact, earlier Figure 16-5, which showed the network devices without a control plane, represents this mostly centralized OpenFlow model of SDN.

In the OpenFlow model, applications may use any APIs (NBIs) supported on the controller platform to dictate what kinds of forwarding table entries are placed into the devices; however, it calls for OpenFlow as the SBI protocol. Additionally, the networking devices need to be switches that support OpenFlow.

Because the ONF’s Open SDN model has this common thread of a controller with an OpenFlow SBI, the controller plays a big role in the network. The next few pages provide a brief background about two such controllers.

The OpenDaylight Controller

First, if you were to look back at the history of OpenFlow, you could find information on dozens of different SDN controllers that support the OpenFlow SDN model. Some were more research oriented, during the years in which SDN was being developed and was more of an experimental idea. As time passed, more and more vendors began building their own controllers. And those controllers often had many similar features, because they were trying to accomplish many of the same goals. As you might expect, some consolidation eventually needed to happen.

The OpenDaylight open-source SDN controller is one of the more successful SDN controller platforms to emerge from the consolidation process over the 2010s. OpenDaylight took many of the same open-source principles used with Linux, with the idea that if enough vendors worked together on a common open-source controller, then all would benefit. All those vendors could then use the open-source controller as the basis for their own products, with each vendor focusing on the product differentiation part of the effort, rather than the fundamental features. The result was that back in the mid-2010s, the OpenDaylight SDN controller (www.opendaylight.org) was born. OpenDaylight (ODL) began as a separate project but now exists as a project managed by the Linux Foundation.

Figure 16-8 shows a generalized version of the ODL architecture. In particular, note the variety of SBIs listed in the lower part of the controller box: OpenFlow, NetConf, PCEP, BGP-LS, and OVSDB; many more exist. The ODL project has enough participants so that it includes a large variety of options, including multiple SBIs, not just OpenFlow.

FIGURE 16-8

FIGURE 16-8 Architecture of NBI, Controller Internals, and SBI to Network Devices

ODL has many features, with many SBIs, and many core features. A vendor can then take ODL, use the parts that make sense for that vendor, add to it, and create a commercial ODL controller.

The Cisco Open SDN Controller (OSC)

At one point back in the 2010s, Cisco offered a commercial version of the OpenDaylight controller called the Cisco Open SDN Controller (OSC). That controller followed the intended model for the ODL project: Cisco and others contributed labor and money to the ODL open-source project; once a new release was completed, Cisco took that release and built new versions of their product.

Cisco no longer produces and sells the Cisco OSC, but I decided to keep a short section about OSC here in this chapter for a couple of reasons. First, if you do any of your own research, you will find mention of Cisco OSC; however, well before this chapter was written in 2019, Cisco had made a strong strategic move toward different approaches to SDN using intent-based networking (IBN). That move took Cisco away from OpenFlow-based SDN. But because you might see references to Cisco OSC online, or in the previous edition of this book, I wanted to point out this transition in Cisco’s direction.

This book describes two Cisco offerings that use an IBN approach to SDN. The next topic in this chapter examines one of those: Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI), Cisco’s data center SDN product. Chapter 17, “Cisco Software-Defined Access,” discusses yet another Cisco SDN option that uses intent-based networking: Software-Defined Access (SDA).

Cisco Application Centric Infrastructure (ACI)

Interestingly, many SDN offerings began with research that discarded many of the old networking paradigms in an attempt to create something new and better. For instance, OpenFlow came to be from the Stanford University Clean Slate research project that had researchers reimagining (among other things) device architectures. Cisco took a similar research path, but Cisco’s work happened to arise from different groups, each focused on different parts of the network: data center, campus, and WAN. That research resulted in Cisco’s current SDN offerings of ACI in the data center, Software-Defined Access (SDA) in the enterprise campus, and Software-Defined WAN (SD-WAN) in the enterprise WAN.

When reimagining networking for the data center, the designers of SCI focused on the applications that run in a data center and what they need. As a result, they built networking concepts around application architectures. Cisco made the network infrastructure become application centric, hence the name of the Cisco data center SDN solution: Application Centric Infrastructure, or ACI.

For example, Cisco looked at the data center world beyond networking and saw lots of automation and control. As discussed in Chapter 15, “Cloud Architecture,” virtualization software routinely starts, moves, and stops VMs. Additionally, cloud software enables self-service for customers so they can enable and disable highly elastic services as implemented with VMs and containers in a data center. From a networking perspective, some of those VMs need to communicate, but some do not. And those VMs can move based on the needs of the virtualization and cloud systems.

ACI set about to create data center networking with the flexibility and automation built into the operational model. Old data center networking models with a lot of per-physical-interface configuration on switches and routers were just poor models for the rapid pace of change and automated nature of modern data centers. This section looks at some of the detail of ACI to give you a sense of how ACI creates a powerful and flexible network to support a modern data center in which VMs and containers are created, run, move, and are stopped dynamically as a matter of routine.

ACI Physical Design: Spine and Leaf

The Cisco ACI uses a specific physical switch topology called spine and leaf. While the other parts of a network might need to allow for many different physical topologies, the data center could be made standard and consistent. But what particular standard and consistent topology? Cisco decided on the spine and leaf design, also called a Clos network after one of its creators.

With ACI, the physical network has a number of spine switches and a number of leaf switches, as shown in Figure 16-9. The figure shows the links between switches, which can be single links or multiple parallel links. Of note in this design (assuming a single-site design):

key_topic_icon.jpg
  • Each leaf switch must connect to every spine switch.

  • Each spine switch must connect to every leaf switch.

  • Leaf switches cannot connect to each other.

  • Spine switches cannot connect to each other.

  • Endpoints connect only to the leaf switches.

FIGURE 16-9

FIGURE 16-9 Spine-Leaf Network Design

Endpoints connect only to leaf switches and never to spine switches. To emphasize the point, Figure 16-10 shows a more detailed version of Figure 16-9, this time with endpoints connected to the leaf switches. None of the endpoints connect to the spine switches; they connect only to the leaf switches. The endpoints can be connections to devices outside the data center, like the router on the left. By volume, most of the endpoints will be either physical servers running a native OS or servers running virtualization software with numbers of VMs and containers as shown in the center of the figure.

key_topic_icon.jpg
FIGURE 16-10

FIGURE 16-10 Endpoints Found on the Leaf Switches Only

Also, note that the figure shows a typical design with multiple leaf switches connecting to a single hardware endpoint like a Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) server. Depending on the design requirements, each UCS might connect to at least two leaf switches, both for redundancy and for greater capacity to support the VMs and containers running on the UCS hardware. (In fact, in a small design with UCS or similar server hardware, every UCS might connect to every leaf switch.)

ACI Operating Model with Intent-Based Networking

The model that Cisco defines for ACI uses a concept of endpoints and policies. The endpoints are the VMs, containers, or even traditional servers with the OS running directly on the hardware. ACI then uses several constructs as implemented via the Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), the software that serves as the centralized controller for ACI.

This section hopes to give you some insight into ACI, rather than touch on every feature. To do that, consider the application architecture of a typical enterprise web app for a moment. Most casual observers think of a web application as one entity, but one web app often exists as three separate servers:

  • Web server: Users from outside the data center connect to a web server, which sends web page content to the user.

  • App (Application) server: Because most web pages contain dynamic content, the app server does the processing to build the next web page for that particular user based on the user’s profile and latest actions and input.

  • DB (Database) server: Many of the app server’s actions require data; the DB server retrieves and stores the data as requested by the app server.

To accommodate those ideas, ACI uses an intent-based networking (IBN) model. With that model, the engineer, or some automation program, defines the policies and intent for which endpoints should be allowed to communicate and which should not. Then the controller determines what that means for this network at this moment in time, depending on where the endpoints are right now.

For instance, when starting the VMs for this app, the virtualization software would create (via the APIC) several endpoint groups (EPGs) as shown in Figure 16-11. The controller must also be told the access policies, which define which EPGs should be able to communicate (and which should not), as implied in the figure with arrowed lines. For example, the routers that connect to the network external to the data center should be able to send packets to all web servers, but not to the app servers or DB servers.

FIGURE 16-11

FIGURE 16-11 Endpoint Groups (EPGs) and Policies

Note that at no point did the previous paragraph talk about which physical switch interfaces should be assigned to which VLAN, or which ports are in an EtherChannel; the discussion moves to an application-centric view of what happens in the network. Once all the endpoints, policies, and related details are defined, the controller can then direct the network as to what needs to be in the forwarding tables to make it all happen—and to more easily react when the VMs start, stop, or move.

To make it all work, ACI uses a centralized controller called the Application Policy Infrastructure Controller (APIC), as shown in Figure 16-12. The name defines the function in this case: it is the controller that creates application policies for the data center infrastructure. The APIC takes the intent (EPGs, policies, and so on), which completely changes the operational model away from configuring VLANs, trunks, EtherChannels, ACLs, and so on.

FIGURE 16-12

FIGURE 16-12 Architectural View of ACI with APIC Pushing Intent to Switch Control Plane

The APIC, of course, has a convenient GUI, but the power comes in software control—that is, network programmability. The same virtualization software, or cloud or automation software, even scripts written by the network engineer, can define the endpoint groups, policies, and so on to the APIC. But all these players access the ACI system by interfacing to the APIC as depicted in Figure 16-13; the network engineer no longer needs to connect to each individual switch and configure CLI commands.

key_topic_icon.jpg
FIGURE 16-13

FIGURE 16-13 Controlling the ACI Data Center Network Using the APIC

For more information on Cisco ACI, go to www.cisco.com/go/aci.

Cisco APIC Enterprise Module

The next example of a Cisco SDN solution in this section, called APIC Enterprise Module (APIC-EM), solves a different problem. When Cisco began to reimagine networking in the enterprise, they saw a huge barrier: the installed base of their own products in most of their customer’s networks. Any enterprise SDN solution that used new SBIs—SBIs that only some of the existing devices and software levels supported—would create a huge barrier to adoption.

APIC-EM Basics

Cisco came up with a couple of approaches, with one of those being APIC-EM, which Cisco released to the public around 2015.

APIC-EM assumes the use of the same traditional switches and routers with their familiar distributed data and control planes. Cisco rejected the idea that its initial enterprise-wide SDN (network programmability) solution could begin by requiring customers to replace all hardware. Instead, Cisco looked for ways to add the benefits of network programmability with a centralized controller while keeping the same traditional switches and routers in place. That approach could certainly change over time (and it has), but Cisco APIC-EM does just that: offer enterprise SDN using the same switches and routers already installed in networks.

What advantages can a controller-based architecture bring if the devices in the network have no new features? In short, adding a centralized controller does nothing in comparison with old network management offerings. Adding a centralized controller with powerful northbound APIs opens many possibilities for customers/operators, while also creating a world in which Cisco and its partners can bring new and interesting management applications to market. It includes these applications, as depicted in Figure 16-14:

  • Topology map: The application discovers and displays the topology of the network.

  • Path Trace: The user supplies a source and destination device, and the application shows the path through the network, along with details about the forwarding decision at each step.

  • Plug and Play: This application provides Day 0 installation support so that you can unbox a new device and make it IP reachable through automation in the controller.

  • Easy QoS: With a few simple decisions at the controller, you can configure complex QoS features at each device.

FIGURE 16-14

FIGURE 16-14 APIC-EM Controller Model

APIC-EM does not directly program the data or control planes, but it does interact with the management plane via Telnet, SSH, and/or SNMP; consequently, it can indirectly impact the data and control planes. The APIC-EM controller does not program flows into tables or ask the control plane in the devices to change how it operates. But it can interrogate and learn the configuration state and operational state of each device, and it can reconfigure each device, therefore changing how the distributed control and data plane operates.

APIC-EM Replacement

Cisco announced the current CCNA exam (200-301) in 2019, and around the same time Cisco announced the end of marketing for the APIC-EM product. That timing left us with a decision to make about whether to include APIC-EM in this book, and if so, to what extent. I decided to keep this small section about APIC-EM for several reasons, one reason being to give you these few closing comments about the product.

First, during the early 2020s—the years that CCNA 200-301 will likely still be the current exam—you will still see many references to APIC-EM. Cisco DevNet will likely still have many useful labs that reference and use APIC-EM, at least for a few years. Furthermore, APIC-EM gives us a great tool to see how a controller can be used, even if the networking devices do not change their normal operation. So I think it’s worth the few pages to introduces APIC-EM as done in this section.

Second, many of the functions of APIC-EM have become core features of the Cisco DNA Center (DNAC) product, which is discussed in some detail in Chapter 17. The list of applications just above this chapter’s Figure 16-14 also exist as part of DNAC, for instance. So, do not look for APIC-EM version 2, but rather look for opportunities to use DNAC.

Summary of the SDN Examples

The three sample SDN architectures in this section of the book were chosen to provide a wide variety for the sake of learning. However, they differ to some degree in how much of the control plane work is centralized. Table 16-2 lists those and other comparison points taken from this section, for easy review and study.

key_topic_icon.jpg

Table 16-2 Points of Comparison: OpenFlow, ACI, and APIC Enterprise

Criteria

OpenFlow

ACI

APIC Enterprise

Changes how the device control plane works versus traditional networking

Yes

Yes

No

Creates a centralized point from which humans and automation control the network

Yes

Yes

Yes

Degree to which the architecture centralizes the control plane

Mostly

Partially

None

SBIs used

OpenFlow

OpFlex

CLI, SNMP

Controllers mentioned in this chapter

OpenDaylight

APIC

APIC-EM

Organization that is the primary definer/owner

ONF

Cisco

Cisco

If you want to learn more about the Cisco solutions, consider using both Cisco DevNet (the Cisco Developer Network) and dCloud (Demo cloud). Cisco provides its DevNet site (https://developer.cisco.com) for anyone interested in network programming, and the Demo Cloud site (https://dcloud.cisco.com) for anyone to experience or demo Cisco products. At the time this book went to press, DevNet had many APIC-EM labs, while both sites had a variety of ACI-based labs.

4. Comparing Traditional Versus Controller-Based Networks | Next Section Previous Section

There are currently no related articles. Please check back later.