| 3/2021 - 4 |
Performance Analysis of Ryu-POX Controller in Different Tree-Based SDN TopologiesCABARKAPA, D.   , RANCIC, D. |
View the paper record and citations in  |
| Click to see author's profile in SCOPUS, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science |
Download PDF  (1,704 KB) | Citation | Downloads: 1,588 | Views: 1,680 |
Author keywords
network topology, next generation networking, tree data structures, software defined networking, soft switching
References keywords
openflow(10), performance(9), networks(8), software(7), controller(7), networking(6), defined(6), controllers(6), network(5), link(4)
Blue keywords are present in both the references section and the paper title.
About this article
Date of Publication: 2021-08-31
Volume 21, Issue 3, Year 2021, On page(s): 31 - 38
ISSN: 1582-7445, e-ISSN: 1844-7600
Digital Object Identifier: 10.4316/AECE.2021.03004
Web of Science Accession Number: 000691632000004
SCOPUS ID: 85121586882
Abstract
Next generation networking architecture is required to be reliable, scalable, flexible, secure and has other advanced features. Traditional TCPIP networks are complex and cannot meet the requirements for high-quality network services. Software Defined Network (SDN) is an important technology that enables a completely new approach in how we develop and manage networks. SDN divides the data plane and control plane and promotes logical centralization of network control so that the controller can schedule the data in the network effectively through OpenFlow protocol. In this paper, we simulate the two SDN controllers of Ryu and POX, and compare their latency and throughput performance under Simple-Tree-Based (STB) and Fat-Tree-Based (FTB) network topologies. An SDN networking model has been designed using a Mininet emulator, and the code for custom STB/FTB topology is executed in Python script. Simulation outcomes indicate that in latency mode Ryu controller exhibited better results than POX controller, making it more suitable for small-scale SDN deployments. From the throughput simulation, POX controller displayed better results than Ryu, showing that it is able to respond to requests more promptly under complex FTB traffic loads, but with more hardware resources utilization. |
| References | | | Cited By «-- Click to see who has cited this paper |
| [1] S. Sezer, S. Scott-Hayward, P. K. Chouhan, B. Fraser, D. Lake, J. Finnegan, N. Viljoen, M. Miller, "Are we ready for SDN? Implementation challenges for software-defined networks", IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51, issue 7, pp. 36-43, 2013, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 615] [2] N. Feamster, J. Rexford, E. Zegura, "The Road to SDN: an intellectual history of programmable networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no.2, April 2014, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 441] [3] N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson, J. Rexford, "OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks", ACM SIGCOMM Comp. Communication Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69-74, 2008. [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 5361] [4] T. Zhang, F. Hu, "Controller architecture and performance in software-defined networks", in Network Innovation through OpenFlow and SDN, CRC Press, 1st edition, 2014, [CrossRef] [5] W. Zhou, Li Li, Min Luo, Wu Chou, "REST API Design Patterns for SDN Northbound API", 28th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), 2014, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 66] [6] A. Lara, A. Kolasani, B. Ramamurthy, "Network innovation using OpenFlow: A survey", IEEE Comm. Surveys Tutorials, vol. 16, issue 1, pp. 493-512, 2014, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 367] [7] R. Narisetty et al., "OpenFlow Configuration Protocol: Implementation for the of Management Plane", 2013, Second GENI Research and Educational Experiment Workshop, 2013, pp. 66-67, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 18] [8] The Open vSwitch Database Management Protocol: IETF-RFC 7047, ISSN: 2070-1721, 2013, [Online] Available: Temporary on-line reference link removed - see the PDF document [9] R. Barrett, A. Facey, W. Nxumalo, J. Rogers, P. Watcher, M. St-Hilaire, "Dynamic Traffic Diversion in SDN: testbed vs Mininet" International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), 2017, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 11] [10] R. C. Meena, M. Bundele and M. Nawal, "RYU SDN Controller Testbed for Performance Testing of Source Address Validation Techniques", 3rd International Conference on Emerging Technologies in Computer Engineering: Machine Learning and Internet of Things (ICETCE), 2020, pp. 1-6, [CrossRef] [11] Md. T. Islam, N. Islam, Md. Al Refat, "Node to Node Performance Evaluation through RYU SDN Controller", Wireless Personal Communications, issue 1/2020, pp. 550-570, 2020, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 23] [12] POX Github Documentation, [Online] Available: Temporary on-line reference link removed - see the PDF document [13] N. Gude, T. Koponen, J. Pettit, B. Pfaff, M. Casado, N. McKeown, S. Shenker, "NOX: Towards an Operating System for Networks", ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2008, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 794] [14] I. Z. Bholebawa, U. D. Dalal, "Performance Analysis of SDN/OpenFlow Controllers: POX Versus Floodlight", Wireless Pers. Communic. 98, 1679-1699, 2018, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 35] [15] R. Khondoker, A. Zaalouk, R. Marx, K. Bayarou, "Feature-based comparison and selection of Software Defined Networking (SDN) controllers", 2014 World Congress on Computer Applications and Inf. Systems (WCCAIS), 2014, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 34] [16] S. Rowshanrad, V. Abdi and M. Keshtgari, "Performance evaluation of SDN controllers: Floodlight and OpenDayLight" IIUM Engineering Journal, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 47-57, 2016. [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 19] [17] M. P. Fernandez, "Comparing OpenFlow controller paradigms scalability: reactive and proactive", IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), 2013, [CrossRef] [Web of Science Times Cited 68] [18] P. Bispo, D. Corujo and R. L. Aguiar, "A Qualitative and Quantitative assessment of SDN Controllers", International Young Engineers Forum (YEF-ECE), pp. 6-11, 2017, [CrossRef] [19] L. Zhu, Md M. Karim, K. Sharif, Fan Li, X. Du, M. Guizani, "SDN Controllers: Benchmarking & Performance Evaluation", arXiv.org, Network and Internet Architecture, 2019, [Online] Available: Temporary on-line reference link removed - see the PDF document [20] B. Vengainathan, A. Basil, M. Tassinari, V. Manral, S. Banks, "Benchmarking Methodology for Software-Defined Networking (SDN) Controller Performance," IETF, RFC 8456, 2018, [Online] Available: Temporary on-line reference link removed - see the PDF document [21] A. Shalimov, D. Zuikov, D. Zimarina, V. Pahskov, R. Smeliansky, "Advanced Study of SDN/OpenFlow Controllers," Proceedings of the Central Eastern European Software Engineering Conference CEE-SECR '13, no. 1, pp. 1-6, 2013, [CrossRef] [22] H. M. Noman, M. N. Jasim, "POX Controller and Open Flow Performance Evaluation in Software Defined Networks (SDN) Using Mininet Emulator," 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques (ICSET 2020), vol. 881, 2020, [CrossRef] [23] C. Gomez, F. Gilabert, M. E. Gomez, P. Lopez, J. Duato, "Deterministic versus Adaptive Routing in Fat-Trees", IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pp. 1-8, 2007, [CrossRef] [24] Po. Chi, M. Wang, J. Guo, C. Lei, "SDN Migration-An Efficient Approach to Integrate OpenFlow Networks with STP-Enabled Networks," 2016 International Computer Symposium (ICS), pp. 148-153, 2016, [CrossRef] [25] I. Z. Bholebawa, R. K. Jha, U. D. Dalal, "Performance Analysis of Proposed Network Architecture: OpenFlow vs. Traditional Network" International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Part I, ISSN 1947-5500 vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 30-39, 2016 [26] M. Jarschel, F. Lehrieder, Z. Magyari and R. Pries, "A Flexible OpenFlow-Controller Benchmark", 2012 European Workshop on Software Defined Networking, pp. 48-53, 2012, [CrossRef] Web of Science® Citations for all references: 7,852 TCR SCOPUS® Citations for all references: 0 Web of Science® Average Citations per reference: 291 ACR SCOPUS® Average Citations per reference: 0 TCR = Total Citations for References / ACR = Average Citations per Reference We introduced in 2010 - for the first time in scientific publishing, the term "References Weight", as a quantitative indication of the quality ... Read more Citations for references updated on 2024-04-24 05:33 in 127 seconds. Note1: Web of Science® is a registered trademark of Clarivate Analytics. Note2: SCOPUS® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Disclaimer: All queries to the respective databases were made by using the DOI record of every reference (where available). Due to technical problems beyond our control, the information is not always accurate. Please use the CrossRef link to visit the respective publisher site. |
Copyright ©2001-2024
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
All rights reserved: Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering is a registered trademark of the Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, photocopied, recorded or archived, without the written permission from the Editor. When authors submit their papers for publication, they agree that the copyright for their article be transferred to the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania, if and only if the articles are accepted for publication. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints and translations.
Permission for other use: The copyright owner's consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific written permission must be obtained from the Editor for such copying. Direct linking to files hosted on this website is strictly prohibited.
Disclaimer: Whilst every effort is made by the publishers and editorial board to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinions or statements appear in this journal, they wish to make it clear that all information and opinions formulated in the articles, as well as linguistic accuracy, are the sole responsibility of the author.
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania
All rights reserved: Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering is a registered trademark of the Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, photocopied, recorded or archived, without the written permission from the Editor. When authors submit their papers for publication, they agree that the copyright for their article be transferred to the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania, if and only if the articles are accepted for publication. The copyright covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article, including reprints and translations.
Permission for other use: The copyright owner's consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific written permission must be obtained from the Editor for such copying. Direct linking to files hosted on this website is strictly prohibited.
Disclaimer: Whilst every effort is made by the publishers and editorial board to see that no inaccurate or misleading data, opinions or statements appear in this journal, they wish to make it clear that all information and opinions formulated in the articles, as well as linguistic accuracy, are the sole responsibility of the author.
