Cited by 262Formal Methods in VerificationSoftware Testing and Debugging TechniquesSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A General Approach to Network Configuration Verification

Beckett, Ryan, Gupta, Aarti, Mahajan, Ratul, Walker, David·2017·Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication

Abstract

We present Minesweeper, a tool to verify that a network satisfies a wide range of intended properties such as reachability or isolation among nodes, waypointing, black holes, bounded path length, load-balancing, functional equivalence of two routers, and fault-tolerance. Minesweeper translates network configuration files into a logical formula that captures the stable states to which the network forwarding will converge as a result of interactions between routing protocols such as OSPF, BGP and static routes. It then combines the formula with constraints that describe the intended property. If the combined formula is satisfiable, there exists a stable state of the network in which the property does not hold. Otherwise, no stable state (if any) violates the property. We used Minesweeper to check four properties of 152 real networks from a large cloud provider. We found 120 violations, some of which are potentially serious security vulnerabilities. We also evaluated Minesweeper on synthetic benchmarks, and found that it can verify rich properties for networks with hundreds of routers in under five minutes. This performance is due to a suite of model-slicing and hoisting optimizations that we developed, which reduce runtime by over 460x for large networks.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3098822.3098834

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1145/1952982.1952984 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/2934872.2934909 · DOI
  3. News and press | BGPMon. http://www.bgpmon.net/news-and-events/. News and press | BGPMon. http://www.bgpmon.net/news-and-events/.
  4. 10.21236/ADA360973 · DOI
  5. 10.1145/5397.5399 · DOI
  6. 10.5555/1792734.1792766 · DOI
  7. 10.1145/1995376.1995394 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/978-3-319-63390-9_14 · DOI · Paper page
  9. S. K. Fayaz , T. Sharma , A. Fogel , R. Mahajan , T. Millstein , V. Sekar , and G. Varghese . Efficient network reachability analysis using a succinct control plane representation . In OSDI , 2016 . S. K. Fayaz, T. Sharma, A. Fogel, R. Mahajan, T. Millstein, V. Sekar, and G. Varghese. Efficient network reachability analysis using a succinct control plane representation. In OSDI, 2016.
  10. N. Feamster and H. Balakrishnan . Detecting BGP configuration faults with static analysis . In NSDI , 2005 . N. Feamster and H. Balakrishnan. Detecting BGP configuration faults with static analysis. In NSDI, 2005.
  11. A. Fogel , S. Fung , L. Pedrosa , M. Walraed-Sullivan , R. Govindan , R. Mahajan , and T. Millstein . A general approach to network configuration analysis . In NSDI , 2015 . A. Fogel, S. Fung, L. Pedrosa, M. Walraed-Sullivan, R. Govindan, R. Mahajan, and T. Millstein. A general approach to network configuration analysis. In NSDI, 2015.
  12. 10.1145/2934872.2934876 · DOI
  13. 10.1145/2815675.2815684 · DOI
  14. 10.1109/90.993304 · DOI
  15. A. Horn , A. Kheradmand , and M. Prasad . Delta-net: Real-time network verification using atoms . In NSDI , 2017 . A. Horn, A. Kheradmand, and M. Prasad. Delta-net: Real-time network verification using atoms. In NSDI, 2017.
  16. P. Kazemian , G. Varghese , and N. McKeown . Header space analysis: Static checking for networks . In NSDI , 2012 . P. Kazemian, G. Varghese, and N. McKeown. Header space analysis: Static checking for networks. In NSDI, 2012.
  17. A. Khurshid , X. Zou , W. Zhou , M. Caesar , and P. B. Godfrey . Veriflow: Verifying network-wide invariants in real time . In NSDI , 2013 . A. Khurshid, X. Zou, W. Zhou, M. Caesar, and P. B. Godfrey. Veriflow: Verifying network-wide invariants in real time. In NSDI, 2013.
  18. N. P. Lopes , N. Bjørner , P. Godefroid , K. Jayaraman , and G. Varghese . Checking beliefs in dynamic networks . In NSDI , 2015 . N. P. Lopes, N. Bjørner, P. Godefroid, K. Jayaraman, and G. Varghese. Checking beliefs in dynamic networks. In NSDI, 2015.
  19. 10.1145/2018436.2018470 · DOI
  20. 10.1145/1536616.1536637 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s10922-008-9108-y · DOI
  22. S. Narain , R. Talpade , and G. Levin . Guide to Reliable Internet Services and Applications , chapter Network Configuration Validation. Springer , 2010 . S. Narain, R. Talpade, and G. Levin. Guide to Reliable Internet Services and Applications, chapter Network Configuration Validation. Springer, 2010.
  23. J. Networks . As the value of enterprise networks escalates, so does the need for configuration management. https://www-935.ibm.com/services/au/gts/pdf/200249.pdf , 2008 . J. Networks. As the value of enterprise networks escalates, so does the need for configuration management. https://www-935.ibm.com/services/au/gts/pdf/200249.pdf, 2008.
  24. 10.1145/2837614.2837657 · DOI
  25. 10.1109/MNET.2005.1541716 · DOI
  26. 10.1145/3828.3837 · DOI
  27. 10.1145/2934872.2934881 · DOI
  28. 10.1109/TNET.2012.2187924 · DOI
  29. K. Weitz , D. Woos , E. Torlak , M. D. Ernst , A. Krishnamurthy , and Z. Tatlock . Formal semantics and automated verification for the border gateway protocol . In NetPL , 2016 . K. Weitz, D. Woos, E. Torlak, M. D. Ernst, A. Krishnamurthy, and Z. Tatlock. Formal semantics and automated verification for the border gateway protocol. In NetPL, 2016.
  30. 10.1007/978-3-319-02444-8_43 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Beckett, R., Gupta, A., Mahajan, R., & Walker, D.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Microsoft Research & Intentionet
Venue
Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication
Publisher
ACM
Published
2017-08-07
Pages
155-168
OpenAlex
W2742515467
Cited by
262
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 4
FWCI
18.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM SIGCOMM Conference (SIGCOMM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1703493,1525936)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software-Defined Networks and 5G
Keywords
Minesweeper, satisfiability checking, reachability, black holes, load balancing, fault tolerance, model slicing, network security vulnerabilities, cloud networks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review