Skip to content

Commit 26705de

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #24 from netverify/2.0-fix-links
2.0 fix links
2 parents 0324be4 + 77f09de commit 26705de

File tree

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+1
-1
lines changed

_posts/2020-12-15-network-verification-2-0.md

Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ The monolithic approach was helpful for the first generation of network verifica
3838

3939
## A linguistic approach
4040

41-
There are multiple ways to tackle the Network Verification 2.0 challenges above, but a linguistic approach is particularly appealing (which we are exploring; see here and here). To make it easy for engineers to specify inputs, along with their networks’ unwritten assumptions, we should design an invariant language that can naturally express sets of values and set operations like unions and differences. We may consider a language that blends SQL-like queries over a data model of the network and regular expressions over path constraints.
41+
There are multiple ways to tackle the Network Verification 2.0 challenges above, but a linguistic approach is particularly appealing (which we are exploring; see [here](https://ratul.org/papers/hotnets2019-putting.pdf) and [here](https://ratul.org/papers/hotnets2020-zen.pdf)). To make it easy for engineers to specify inputs, along with their networks’ unwritten assumptions, we should design an invariant language that can naturally express sets of values and set operations like unions and differences. We may consider a language that blends SQL-like queries over a data model of the network and regular expressions over path constraints.
4242

4343
A high-level invariant language over a well-defined data model also makes it easy to track which network elements (e.g., devices, interfaces, paths) are “covered” by an invariant. This basic capability can then be the basis for providing feedback to network engineers about how well their invariant set covers the network. This is similar to how test frameworks for software can quantify the extent of software coverage, though we will need custom measures for network coverage given the differences in the two domains (e.g., a network is not a sequence of statements or basic blocks, which is the model employed by software test frameworks).
4444

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)