Bridging the Gap: FPGAs as Programmable Switches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of P4, a domain specific language, coupled to PISA, a domain specific architecture, is revolutionizing the networking field. P4 allows to describe how packets are processed by a programmable data plane, spanning ASICs and CPUs, implementing PISA. Because the processing flexibility can be limited on ASICs, while the CPUs performance for networking tasks lag behind, recent works have proposed to implement PISA on FPGAs. However, little effort has been dedicated to analyze whether FPGAs are good candidates to implement PISA. In this work, we take a step back and evaluate the micro-architecture efficiency of various PISA blocks. We demonstrate, supported by a theoretical and experimental analysis, that the performance of a few PISA blocks is severely limited by the current FPGA architectures. Specifically, we show that match tables and programmable packet schedulers represent the main performance bottlenecks for FPGA-based programmable switches. Thus, we explore two avenues to alleviate these shortcomings. First, we identify network applications well tailored to current FPGAs. Second, to support a wider range of networking applications, we propose modifications to the FPGA architectures which can also be of interest out of the networking field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".