Advertisement

Wireless Networks

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 2963–2976 | Cite as

Prioritized admission control with load distribution over multiple controllers for scalable SDN-based mobile networks

  • Yeunwoong Kyung
  • Jinwoo ParkEmail author
Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Software-defined networking (SDN) is a promising networking paradigm towards a centralized network control plane decoupled from the forwarding plane. Owing to its intrinsic separated architecture between the control and forwarding plane (OpenFlow switch specification 1.5.0. https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/sdn-resources/onf-specifications/openflow/openflow-switch-v1.5.0.noipr.pdf, 2014; Doria et al. in Forwarding and control element separation (ForCES) protocol specification. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5810), SDN control plane is more sensitive to scalability concerns compared to traditional management systems (GPP TS 32.101. Telecommunication management; Principles and high level requirements (Release 14), 2017) because forwarding plane nodes no longer have the ability to make decisions of incoming traffics which means forwarding plane performance is highly dependent on the control plane’s response (Karakus and Durresi in Comput Netw 112: 279–293, 2016; Oktian et al. in Comput Netw 121: 100–111, 2017; Bianco et al. in Comput Commun 102:130–138, 2016). To solve the problem, SDN architectures employing multiple controllers have been proposed. However, when the load is concentrated on certain controllers, incoming requests to the controllers can be blocked while others are idle resulting in low efficiency overall. Especially, in mobile networks, this problem can become critical because blocking or delay of requests related to handover causes a severe quality of service degradation. This paper proposes a prioritized admission control scheme with load distribution over multiple controllers for scalable SDN-based mobile networks in which handover messages are admitted with high priority and load distribution is performed over multiple controllers to prevent blocking of handover messages. From the performance evaluation of the proposed scheme, the blocking probability of handover messages can be reduced and controller resources can be efficiently utilized without significant additional signaling load compared to conventional schemes.

Keywords

Software-defined networking Scalability OpenFlow Mobility Admission control QoS Load migration 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Institute for Information & communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP) (No. B0101-16-1272, Development of Device Collaborative Giga-Level Smart Cloudlet Technology).

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Doria, A., et al. Forwarding and control element separation (ForCES) protocol specification. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5810.
  3. 3.
    GPP TS 32.101. (2017). Telecommunication management; Principles and high level requirements (Release 14), March 2017.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karakus, M., & Durresi, A. (2016). A survey: control plane scalability issues and approaches in software-defined networking (SDN). Computer Networks, 112, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oktian, Y. E., Lee, S., Lee, H., & Lam, J. (2017). Distributed SDN controller system: A survey on design choice. Computer Networks, 121, 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bianco, A., Giaccone, P., Mashayekhi, R., Ullio, M., & Vercellone, V. (2016). Scalability of ONOS reactive forwarding applications in ISP networks. Computer Communications, 102, 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu, M., Rexford, J., Freedman, M. J., & Wang, J. (2010). Scalable flow-based networking with difane. Proceedings of SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 40(4), 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yao, G., Bi, J., Li, Y., & Guo, L. (2014). On the capacitated controller placement problem in software defined networks. IEEE Communications Letters, 18(8), 1339–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stankiewicz, R., & Jajszczyk, A. (2011). A survey of QoE assurance in converged networks. Elsevier Computer Networks, 55(7), 1459–1473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pentikousis, K., Wang, Y., & Hu, W. (2013). Mobileflow: Toward software-defined mobile network. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(7), 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yazici, V., Kozat, U. C., & Sunay, M. O. (2014). A new control plane for 5G network architecture with a case study on unified handoff, mobility, and routing management. IEEE Communications Magazine, 52(11), 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yim, T., Nguyen, T. M., Hong, K., Kyung, Y., & Park, J. (2014). Mobile flow-aware networks for mobility and QoS support in the IP-based wireless networks. Wireless Networks, 20(6), 1639–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin, X., Li, L. E., Vanbever, L., & Rexford, J. (2013). SoftCell: Scalable and flexible cellular core network architecture. In Proceedings of ACM CoNEXT (pp. 163–174), December 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Open Networking Foundation (ONF). (2013). Wireless & Mobile. WMWG (Wireless & Mobile Working Group) Charter Application, ONF. https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/working-groups/charter-wireless-mobile.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Koponen, T., Casado, M., Gude, N., Stribling, J., Poutievski, L., Zhu, M., et al. (2010). Onix: A distributed control platform for large-scale production networks. In Proceedings of OSDI.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dixit, A., Hao, F., Mukherjee, S., Lakshman, T. V., & Kompella, R. (2013). Towards and elastic distributed SDN controller. Proceedings of ACM HotSDN, 43(4), 7–12.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yeganeh, S., & Ganjali, Y. (2012). Kandoo: A framework for efficient and scalable offloading of control applications. In Proceedings of HotSDN (pp. 19–24).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zander, J. S., Sarrar, N., & Schmid, S. (2014). Towards a scalable and near-sighted control plane architecture for WiFi SDNs. In Proceedings of ACM HotSDN (pp. 217–218), August 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levin, D., Wundsam, A., Heller, B., Handigol, N., & Feldmann, A. (2012). Logically centralized? State distribution trade-offs in software defined networks. In Proceedings of HotSDN.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jain, S., Kumar, A., Mandal, S., Ong, J., Poutievski, L., Singh, A., et al. (2013). B4: Experience with a globally-deployed software defined WAN. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (pp. 3–14).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hong, C.-Y., Kandula, S., Mahajan, R., Zhang, M., Gill, V., Nanduri, M., et al. (2013). Achieving high utilization with software-driven WAN. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (pp. 15–26).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shah, S. A. R., Bae, S., Jaikar, A., & Noh, S. Y. (2016). An adaptive load monitoring solution for logically centralized SDN controller. In Proceedings of 18th Asia-Pacific network operations and management symposium (APNOMS) (pp. 1–6), Kanazawa.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aslan, M., & Matrawy, A. (2016). Adaptive consistency for distributed SDN controllers. In Proceedings of 17th international telecommunications network strategy and planning symposium (networks) (pp. 150–157), Montreal, QC, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kyung, Y., Hong, K., Nguyen, T. M., & Park, J. (2015). A load distribution scheme over multiple controllers for scalable SDN. In Proceedings of ICUFN (pp. 808–810), July 2015.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, W., Sharma, P., Lee, J., Banerjee, S., Tourrilhes, J., Lee, S. J., et al. (2010). Automated and scalable qos control for network convergence. In Proceedings of USENIX INM/WREN (pp. 1–6), April 2010.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang, J., He, Y., Duan, Q., Yang, Q., & Wang, W. (2014). Admission control with flow aggregation for QoS provisioning in software-defined network. In Proceedings of IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM) (pp. 1182–1186).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guck, J. W. & Kellerer, W. (2014). Achieving end-to-end real-time quality of service with software defined networking. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on cloud networking (CloudNet) (pp. 70–76).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kyung, Y., Yim, T., Kim, T., Nguyen, T. M., & Park J. (2014). A QoS-aware differential processing control scheme for OpenFlow-based mobile networks. In IEICE transactions on information and systems (Vol. E97-D, No. 9, pp. 2178–2181), August 2014.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang, R., Butnariu, D., & Rexford, J. (2011). OpenFlow-based server load balancing gone wild. In Proceedings of USENIX HotICE (pp. 12–12), USA.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Handigol, N., Seetharaman, S., Flajslik, M., McKeown, N., & Johari, R. (2009). Plug-n-serve: Load-balancing web traffic using OpenFlow. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM demo, August 2009.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Namal, S., Ahmad, I., Gurtov, A., & Ylianttila, M. (2013). SDN based inter-technology load balancing leveraged by flow admission control. In Proceedings of IEEE SDN4FN (pp. 1–5), November 2013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sallahi, A., & Hilaire, M. S. (2015). Optimal model for the controller placement problem in software defined networks. IEEE Communications Letters, 19(1), 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lange, S., Gebert, S., Zinner, T., Gia, P. T., Hock, D., Jarschel, M., et al. (2015). Heuristic approaches to the controller placement problem in large scale SDN networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 12(1), 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yazici, V., Sunay, M. O., & Ercan, A. O. (2012). Controlling a software-defined network via distributed controllers. In Proceedings of 2012 NEM summit (pp. 16–20), October 2012.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jeon, S., Aguiar, R. L., & Kang, N. (2013). Load-balancing proxy mobile IPv6 networks with mobility session redirection. IEEE Communications Letter, 17(4), 808–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jarschel, M., et al. (2011). Modeling and performance evaluation of an OpenFlow architecture. In Proceedings of 23rd ITC (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Samsung ElectronicsSeoulKorea
  2. 2.School of Electrical EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations