Advertisement

WECAN: an Efficient West-East Control Associated Network for Large-Scale SDN Systems

  • Haisheng Yu
  • Heng QiEmail author
  • Keqiu Li
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been proposed as a promising way for its centralized network control and management. However, the latest SDN research focuses on smaller network environments such as data centers and enterprises, which easily lead to single point of failure and unbalanced network load in large-scale network environments. One effective way to solve this problem is to establish a standardized mechanism between network entities such as data centers, enterprises and Internet service providers (ISPs). In this paper, we propose WECAN, an efficient West-East Control Associated Network for enabling communication between different SDN entities. WECAN has three complementary modules: Network Information Collection (NIC) module, Cross-domain Management (CDM) module and Controller Selection Management(CSM) module. NIC collects network information from a different set of controllers and generates a domain-wide network view. CDM collects domain information from other domains to generate a global network view. Base on the domain-wide network view and global network view, CSM selects the most efficient controller for each network flow in the network. To test WECAN, we develop a prototype system. Our experimental results show that WECAN can effectively control network entities to communicate, and WECAN has greatly improved network latency, network throughput and network reliability compared to a single controller-controlled network. Moreover, WECAN is very easy to use.

Keywords

WECAN Software-defined networking OpenFlow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the State Key Program of National Natural Science of China under Grant 61432002, in part by the NSFC under Grant 61772112, Grant 61672379, and Grant 61702365, in part by the Da lian High-level Talent Innovation Program under Grant 2015R049.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Medved J, Varga R, Tkacik A, Gray K (2014) Opendaylight: towards a model-driven sdn controller architecture. In: 2014 IEEE 15th international symposium on, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Berde P, Gerola M, Hart J, Higuchi Y, Kobayashi M, Koide T, Lantz B, O’Connor B, Radoslavov P, Snow W et al (2014) Onos: towards an open, distributed sdn os. In: Proceedings of the third workshop on hot topics in software defined networking, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Gude N, Koponen T, Pettit J, Pfaff B, Casado M, McKeown N, Shenker S (2008) Nox: towards an operating system for networks. In: ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Casado M, Koponen T, Shenker S, Tootoonchian A (2012) Fabric: a retrospective on evolving sdn. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on Hot topics in software defined networks, pp 85– 90Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reitblatt M, Foster N, Rexford J, Walker D (2011) Consistent updates for software-defined networks: change you can believe in!. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM workshop on hot topics in networks, p 7Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raghavan B, Casado M, Koponen T, Ratnasamy S, Ghodsi A, Shenker S (2012) Software-defined internet architecture: decoupling architecture from infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM workshop on hot topics in networks, pp 43– 48Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherwood R, Gibb G, Yap K-K, Appenzeller G, Casado M, McKeown N, Parulkar G Flowvisor: a network virtualization layer. OpenFlow Switch Consortium, Tech. Rep.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jain S, Kumar A, Mandal S, Ong J, Poutievski L, Singh A, Venkata S, Wanderer J, Zhou J, Zhu M et al (2013) B4: experience with a globally-deployed software defined wan. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hong C-Y, Kandula S, Mahajan R, Zhang M, Gill V, Nanduri M, Wattenhofer R (2013) Achieving high utilization with software-driven wan. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 conference, pp 15–26Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu M, Rexford J, Freedman MJ, Wang J (2011) Scalable flow-based networking with difane. In: ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review, pp 351–362Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monsanto C, Reich J, Foster N, Rexford J, Walker D et al (2013) Composing software defined networks. In: NSDI, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qiu T, Zhao A, Xia F, Si W, Wu D (2017) Rose: robustness strategy for scale-free wireless sensor networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw PP(99):1–16Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nunes BAA, Mendonca M, Nguyen XN, Obraczka K, Turletti T (2014) A survey of software-defined networking: past, present, and future of programmable networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 16(3):1617–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang Y, Matta I (2014) Sdn management layer: design requirements and future direction. In: 2014 IEEE 22nd international conference on network protocols (ICNP), pp 555–562Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qiu T, Qiao R, Han M, Sangaiah AK, Lee I (2017) A lifetime-enhanced data collecting scheme for the internet of things. IEEE Commun Mag 55(11):132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, Parulkar G, Peterson L, Rexford J, Shenker S, Turner J (2008) Openflow: enabling innovation in campus networks. In: ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review, pp 69–74Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cai Z (2011) Maestro: achieving scalability and coordination in centralized network control plane. PhD thesis, Rice UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tootoonchian A, Ganjali Y (2010) Hyperflow: a distributed control plane for openflow. In: Proceedings of the 2010 internet network management conference on Research on enterprise networking, pp 3–3Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Qiu T, Qiao R, Wu D (2018) EABS: an event-aware backpressure scheduling scheme for emergency internet of things. IEEE Trans Mob Comput PP(99):1–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dixit A, Hao F, Mukherjee S, Lakshman T, Kompella RR (2014) Elasticon: an elastic distributed sdn controller. In: Proceedings of the tenth ACM/IEEE symposium on architectures for networking and communications systems, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koponen T, Casado M, Gude N, Stribling J, Poutievski L, Zhu M, Ramanathan R, Iwata Y, Inoue H, Hama T et al (2010) Onix: a distributed control platform for large-scale production networks. In: OSDI, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shin S, Porras PA, Yegneswaran V, Fong MW, Gu G, Tyson M (2013) Fresco: modular composable security services for software-defined networks. In: NDSSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greenberg A, Hjalmtysson G, Maltz DA, Myers A, Rexford J, Xie G, Yan H, Zhan J, Zhang H (2005) A clean slate 4d approach to network control and management. In: ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review, pp 41–54Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dixit A, Kogan K, Eugster P (2014) Composing heterogeneous sdn controllers with flowbricks. In: IEEE international conference on network protocols, pp 287–292Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    cloudlab project. http://www.cloudlab.us/
  31. 31.
    Ceni project. http://www.fnic.cn/
  32. 32.
    Mitzenmacher M, Richa AW, Sitaraman R (2001) The power of two random choices: a survey of techniques and results. Handbook Random Comput 11:255–312MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina

Personalised recommendations