This paper discusses the requirements and challenges inherent in the design of a carrier-class network operating system (OS). Key facets of Juniper Networks? Junos? operating system, Juniper's network operating system, are used to illustrate the evolution of OS design and underscore the relationship between functionality and architectural decisions.
The challenge of designing a contemporary network operating system is examined from different angles, including flexibility, ability to power a wide range of platforms, nonstop operation, and parallelism. Architectural challenges, trade-offs and opportunities are identified, as well as some of the best practices in building state-of-the-art network operating systems.
Modern network devices are complex entities composed of both silicon and software. Thus, designing an efficient hardware platform is not, by itself, sufficient to achieve an effective, cost-efficient and operationally tenable product. The control plane plays a critical role in the development of features and in ensuring device usability.
Although progress from the development of faster CPU boards and forwarding planes is visible, structural changes made in software are usually hidden, and while vendor collateral often offers a list of features in a carrier-class package, operational experiences may vary considerably.
Products that have been through several generations of software releases provide the best examples of the difference made by the choice of OS. It is still not uncommon to find routers or switches that started life under older, monolithic software and later migrated to more contemporary designs. The positive effect on stability and operational efficiency is easy to notice and appreciate.
However, migration from one network operating system to another can pose challenges from nonoverlapping feature sets, noncontiguous operational experiences and inconsistent software quality. These potential challenges make it is very desirable to build a control plane that can power the hardware products and features supported in both current and future markets.
Developing a flexible, long-lasting and high-quality network OS provides a foundation that can gracefully evolve to support new needs in its height for up and down scaling, width for adoption across many platforms, and depth for rich integration of new features and functions. It takes time, significant investment and in-depth expertise.
Most of the engineers writing the early releases of Junos OS came from other companies where they had previously built network software. They had firsthand knowledge of what worked well, and what could be improved. These engineers found new ways to solve the limitations that they'd experienced in building the older operating systems. Resulting innovations in Junos OS are significant and rooted in its earliest design stages. Still, to ensure that our products anticipate and fulfill the next generation of market requirements, Junos OS is periodically reevaluated to determine whether any changes are needed to ensure that it continues to provide the reliability, performance and resilience for which it is known.
Contemporary network operating systems are mostly advanced and specialized branches of POSIX-compliant software platforms and are rarely developed from scratch. The main reason for this situation is the high cost of developing a world-class operating system all the way from concept to finished product. By adopting a general purpose OS architecture, network vendors can focus on routing-specific code, decrease time to market, and benefit from years of technology and research that went into the design of the original (donor) products.
For example, consider Table 1, which lists some operating systems for routers and their respective origins (the Generation column is explained in the following sections).
Generally speaking, network operating systems in routers can be traced to three generations of development, each with distinctively different architectural and design goals.
Typically, first-generation network operating systems for routers and switches were proprietary images running in a flat memory space, often directly from flash memory or ROM. While supporting multiple processes for protocols, packet handling and management, they operated using a cooperative, multitasking model in which each process would run to completion or until it voluntarily relinquished the CPU.
All first-generation network operating systems shared one trait: They eliminated the risks of running full-size commercial operating systems on embedded hardware. Memory management, protection and context switching were either rudimentary or nonexistent, with the primary goals being a small footprint and speed of operation. Nevertheless, first-generation network operating systems made networking commercially viable and were deployed on a wide range of products. The downside was that these systems were plagued with a host of problems associated with resource management and fault isolation; a single runaway process could easily consume the processor or cause the entire system to fail. Such failures were not uncommon in the data networks controlled by older software and could be triggered by software errors, rogue traffic and operator errors.
Legacy platforms of the first generation are still seen in networks worldwide, although they are gradually being pushed into the lowest end of the telecom product lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment