Two Rule-Based Building-Block Architectures for Policy-Based Network Control

  • Yasusi Kanada
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1942)


Policy-based networks can be customized by users by injecting programs called policies into the network nodes. So if general-purpose functions can be specified in a policy-based network, the network can be regarded as an active network in the wider sense. In a policy-based network, two or more policies must often cooperate to provide a high-level function or policy. To support such building-block policies, two architectures for modeling a set of policies have been developed: pipe-connection architecture and label-connection architecture. It is shown that rule-based building blocks are better for policy-based network control and that the label-connection architecture is currently better. However, the pipe-connection architecture is better in regards to parallelism, which is very important in network environments.


Output Port Input Port Schedule Rule Logic Programming Language Expedite Forwarding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Bak 00]
    Baker, Chan, F., K., and A. Smith: Management Information Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture, draft-ietf-diffserv-mib-04.txt, Internet Draft, July 2000.Google Scholar
  2. [Ber 99]
    Bernet, Y., et al.: A Framework for Differentiated Services, draft-ietf-diffserv-framework-02.txt, Internet Draft, February 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [Bla 98]
    Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and Weiss, W.: An Architecture for Differentiated Service, RFC 2475, December 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [Cla 86]
    Clark, K., and Gregory, S.: PARLOG: Parallel Programming in Logic, ACM Trans. on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1–49, 1986.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [Fin 00]
    Fine, M., McCloghrie, K., Seligson, J., Chan, K., Hahn, S., Smith, A., and Reichmeyer, F.: Differentiated Services Quality of Service Policy Information Base, draft-ietf-diffserv-pib-01.txt, Internet Draft, July 2000.Google Scholar
  6. [For 81]
    Forgy, C. L.: OPS5 User’s Manual, Technical Report CMU-CS-81-135, Carnegie Mellon University, Dept. of Computer Science, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. [Jac 99]
    Jacobson, V., Nichols, K., and Poduri, K.: An Expedited Forwarding PHB, RFC 2598, June 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [Kan 99]
    Kanada, Y., Ikezawa, M., Miyake, S., and Atarashi, Y.: SNMP-based QoS Programming Interface MIB for Routers, draft-kanada-diffserv-qospifmib-00.txt, Internet Draft, October 1999,
  9. [Kan 00a]
    Kanada, Y.: Rule-based Modular Representation of QoS Policies, Networking Architecture Workshop, pp. 106–113, IEICE (The Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engineers), February, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [Kan 00b]
    Kanada, Y.: A Representation of Network Node QoS Control Policies Using Rule-based Building Blocks, International Workshop on Quality of Service 2000 (IWQoS 2000), pp. 161–163.Google Scholar
  11. [Moo 00]
    Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J., and Westerinen, A.: Policy Framework Core Information Model. Version 1 Specification, draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-07.txt, Internet Draft, July 2000.Google Scholar
  12. [Nic 98]
    Nichols, N., Blake, S., Baker, F., and Black, D.: Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers, RFC 2474, December 1998.Google Scholar
  13. [Sha 86]
    Shapiro, E.: Concurrent Prolog: A Progress Report, IEEE Computer, August 1986, pp. 44–59, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. [She 97]
    Shenker, S., Partridge, C., and Guerin, R.: Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service, RFC 2212, September 1997.Google Scholar
  15. [Sni 99]
    Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., and Cohen, R.: Policy Framework QoS Information Model, draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-01.txt, Internet Draft, April 2000.Google Scholar
  16. [Ued 85]
    Ueda, K.: Guarded Horn Clauses, Logic Programming Conference '85, pp. 225–2236, 1985. Also in ICOT Technical Report, TR-103, Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, 1985, and in New Generation Computing, Vol. 5, pp. 29–44, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. [Wro 97]
    Wroclawski, J.: Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element Service, RFC 2211, September 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasusi Kanada
    • 1
  1. 1.Central Research LaboratoryHitachi, Ltd. Higashi-KoigakuboTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations