NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

DIRECTORY

RESOURCES

PARTICIPATE

SERVICES

ABOUT US

OUR BLOG

Published Does SDN Make My Network Management Look Fat_ I SDNCentral on Scribd http://t.co/7lBi1Egx #readcast

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore Murphy McCauley Interview

By: Roy Chua Posted: Sep. 05, 2012
Like 0 Tweet 15 Share 5 6

2 Comments

We had the opportunity to sit down for a chat with Murphy McCauley of ICSI and UC Berkeley and get his thoughts on the venerable NOX controller, as well as exciting work happening on POX, arguably an offspring of the original NOX project. NOX plays an important role in the evolution of SDN and OpenFlow and we felt it was important to ensure SDNCentral readers get a first-hand account of where the project is going. SDNCentral: What do you do for your day job? Murphy: My primary job for the past couple of years has been doing research with the networking group at the International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) under Scott Shenker. Ive also just become a grad student at UC Berkeley. SDNCentral: When and how did you get involved in SDN? Murphy: I was doing my undergrad at Northern Arizona University and made friends with

1 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

one of my instructors who is also a friend of Martin Casados. He introduced the two of us when Martin came to do a talk. This eventually led to an internship at Nicira in 2008. Ive been involved with SDN at some level since then. SDNCentral: For a while, you were the only one fixing bugs and supporting the original NOX. What happened there with the rest of the folks? Murphy: Well, a lot of the serious users who were really engaged with the community went in their separate ways, and Nicira went in their own direction, of course. Some of the Stanford users switched to Beacon. Eventually, there were three of us (two of us at ICSI, one at Stanford), and then just the two of us at ICSI, etc. It just kind of happened that way. SNDCentral: Whats happening with NOX, NOX Destiny, NOX Zaku now? Murphy: Well, for starters, theres a major new version of NOX. This is the verity branch. Amin Tootoonchian has done the heavy lifting on this based on work hes been doing over the past couple of years. Its cleaner, slimmer, and faster. On the down side, it drops a lot of components and Python support. We actually dont think thats a huge down side, but we recognize that its a substantial departure and that its not backwards compatible, so we havent just killed off the older NOX entirely. We now refer to the older branches like zaku and destiny as NOX Classic. We dont really use NOX Classic at Berkeley or ICSI anymore, so they havent seen much movement for a while, and it shows (they dont compile easily on recent versions of Ubuntu, for example). The code has been moved to github, so people are welcome to fork it and put in pull requests, which well review. But on the whole, I dont really suggest starting new projects with zaku or destiny unless you know what you are doing. The amount of support we can offer is certainly diminished given that were not active users of it anymore ourselves. SDNCentral: Why keep the NOX name instead of renaming the new version? Murphy: We kept the name NOX because while the new codebase is the most substantial change NOX has seen, it really is still NOX, just the next version. That said, we didnt want to just step all over the old NOX and relegate it to some arcane branches; we figure there may still be development or maintenance on it for existing projects that dont want to (or cant easily) switch to the newer codebase. We could have called the new one NOX-Next-Gen, but then wed run the risk of having to call the next version NOX-NextGen-Next-Gen, and you can only do that four or five times before it starts getting silly. What we really want to make clear is that as far as were concerned, the new codebase is the way forward. SDNCentral: How does POX fit into the picture? Murphy: Well, POX came about in response to our own experience with NOX and with what we saw from other users. I think in part this stems from the fact that NOX started life as a product, but ended up being used a lot for research, and those two arent the same. For one thing, a lot of users were only really interested in Python, and NOX wasnt ideal

2 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

for that. Just getting NOX built could be a bit of a challenge. The interface between the C++ and Python parts could be difficult to understand or extend. Python multithreading didnt work (which stopped one from using a fair number of libraries, for example). So POX was created to address that to make a framework that made it easier to write controllers in Python, and this really dovetails with the new NOX codebase. Compared to NOX Classic, POX makes it easier to write Python components, and the new NOX makes it easier to write C++ components. In both cases they generally come out with better performance. SDNCentral: What is your vision for POX and NOX? Murphy: Id like to see POX continue to become a good platform for SDN research, academia, education, and experimentation. And at least for us, its one of our tools for helping to explore the abstractions and applicability of SDN, so that will continue too. For NOX, I am not quite as sure. We think its a good starting point for writing some really fast controllers, but that mostly means designs which heavily rely on packet-in events, and we dont currently have too many plans in that direction. We also think it would be a good starting point for a solid C++ production controller, but again, thats not really our focus. Well be interested to see what the community does with it. SDNCentral: So, who should use NOX, and who should use POX? Murphy: If you want an introduction to or to experiment with SDN on Mac OS, Windows, or Linux use POX. If you want to use SDN in the classroom or to prototype SDN projects use POX. If youre doing academic research use POX. If you want to build a system thats bound by controller performance or a finely engineered controller written in C++ start with NOX. SDNCentral: Whos working on both projects today? Murphy: At the moment, Amin is the only one specifically working on them. Im officially taking a break, but I am intending to continue contributing. For example, Ill be releasing the start of a web-based GUI sometime soon. And a number of us at Berkeley and ICSI (myself included) use them as part of other projects fairly regularly and are willing to chase down problems and push in improvements as were able. I think the medium-term plan is for the Open Networking Lab to take a more active role. SDNCentral: NOX has historically been the most popular controller of choice within the research and education community. Do you see that changing? Murphy: Possibly, depending on your needs. Our belief is that POX is generally the easier option. I mean, thats closer to POXs goals. And, I know Floodlight is picking up a lot of steam here too, which makes sense. Its got good resources behind it, and certainly they have an active focus on production. If thats where your interests are (and not on the more academic side), then this makes sense. SDNCentral: Whats your view on the multiple different controllers in the marketplace?

3 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

Floodlight, Trema, NodeFlow, etc? Murphy: People have different reasons for getting involved with SDN. People want different things from it. Certainly it makes sense that different controllers evolve to suit these different motivations especially since its still so early that we dont even know what all the uses for SDN are, much less which ones are real wins. Its a big space, and each of these controllers is a point in it. Even in fairly established domains such as web servers or programming languages, you end up with multiple players. So, I think its a healthy thing and a good sign for SDN. SDNCentral: Whats your view on the Northbound API discussions? Murphy: I think discussions of the northbound API may have leapfrogged a bigger question: what is it an API for? That is to say, forget about the specifics of the interface: can anyone explain exactly what the controller is? Where, if anywhere is the clean line that separates the controller from the application? If you have an answer to this, I think the actual API will just fall out. But, I think coming up with an answer about what a controller is that supports all the SDN applications weve thought of and all the ones we havent thought of yet is a tall order. As I said, thats something our group at Berkeley works on. So, that sort of takes us back to my answer to the previous question: I think at least for the foreseeable future, we end up with multiple controllers that are best used to support different types of applications, with no single magic SDN API that works for all of them. Ultimately, I think its a bit premature to be talking APIs. People should write their applications, and if they can cleanly separate their application from a controller, then theyve defined an API. Some of these will end up being more flexible or better designed or just more useful, and some winners will emerge. Those ones will get embraced. Really, I think were already seeing this, for example with OpenStack Quantum. They are defined by the application, and controllers grow to support it. I think this is a really practical way to go about it for now. SDNCentral: Whats the number one thing the community can do to support you in your efforts? Murphy: Really engage the rest of the community. Do your development in a github fork, issue pull requests, submit bug reports, get on the mailing lists, get on the website; anything! I think there have been some instances where people havent done this that have resulted in real missed opportunity on both sides. And, I *know* there have been some longstanding bugs that nobody ever told us about but we would have been happy to fix if we had been aware of them. Get involved!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Roy Chua has written 26 post in this blog.

4 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

Roy Chua
Entrepreneurial marketing executive with 20+ years of experience in enterprise SaaS, cloud computing More

You might like:

Still no VMware of Networking. Overlays change nothing beneath the surface.

RouteFlow Replacing Cisco Routers? Interview with Christian Esteve Rothenberg of CPqD

Why are they hating on layer-2?

Interview with Jayshree Ullal of Arista on Network Virtualization and SDN

[?]

2 Responses to NOX, POX and Controllers Galore Murphy McCauley Interview 1. Brent Salisbury says: September 5, 2012 at 11:36 am Fantastic interview Roy. Murphy is one of the best out there not to mention a really nice guy. Anyone patient enough to listen to my questions is a hell of a nice guy. I will likely look to Murphys thoughts and research for the rest of my career as a thought leader. Often an overused term but certainly not in his case. He has a nice presentation from an ONS conference on youtube discussing POX if anyone wanted to hear more. Thanks guys, keep it up great content! Log in to Reply

Roy Chua says: September 6, 2012 at 7:58 am Thanks, Brent! Absolutely, Murphy was awesome to chat with and I see lots of interest already around POX. With its flexibility and clean object abstractions on Python, I think well see many more OpenFlow testbeds using POX. If anyone has interesting projects using POX, contact us and wed be glad to feature them. Log in to Reply Leave a Reply You must be logged in to post a comment.

5 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM

NOX, POX and Controllers Galore - Murphy McCauley Interview

http://www.sdncentral.com/sdn-blog/nox-pox-controllers-murphy-mcca...

Recent Posts
tech test post Does SDN Make My Network Management Look Fat? NOX, POX and Controllers Galore Murphy McCauley Interview Why are they hating on layer-2? VMWorld 2012 Update Question to VMware: So Pat, why so much for Nicira? SDNCentral by SDNCentral is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at www.sdncentral.com. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.sdncentral.com.

TERMS OF SERVICE

PRIVACY

Copyright 2012. SDNCentral LLC. SDNCentral, SDNNews, SDNTech are trademarks of SDNCentral LLC.

6 of 6

9/7/2012 2:11 PM