Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 277–285 | Cite as

LLMP: Exploiting LLDP for Latency Measurement in Software-Defined Data Center Networks

  • Yang Li
  • Zhi-Ping CaiEmail author
  • Hong Xu
Regular Paper


The administrators of data center networks have to continually monitor path latency to detect network anomaly quickly and ensure the efficient operation of the networks. In this work, we propose Link Layer Measurement Protocol (LLMP), a prototype latency measuring framework based on the Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP). LLDP is utilized by the controller to discover network topology dynamically. We insert timestamps into the optional LLDPTLV field in LLDP, so that the controller can estimate latency on any single link. The framework utilizes a reactive measurement approach without injecting any probe packets to the network. Our experiments show that the latency of a link can be measured accurately by LLMP. In relatively complex network conditions, LLMP can still maintain a high accuracy. We store the LLMP measurement results into a latency matrix, which can be used to infer the path latency.


software-defined network (SDN) Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP) latency measurement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2018_1819_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (305 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 305 kb)


  1. 1.
    Das A, Lumezanu C, Zhang Y et al. Transparent and flexible network management for big data processing in the cloud. In Proc. the 5th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing, June 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duffield N G, Grossglauser M. Trajectory sampling for direct traffic observation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 2001, 9(3): 280-292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu C, Lumezanu C, Zhang Y et al. FlowSense: Monitoring network utilization with zero measurement cost. In Proc. PAM, Oct. 2013, pp.31-34.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rotsos C, Sarrar N, Uhlig S et al. OFLOPS: An open framework for OpenFlow switch evaluation. In Proc. PAM, Mar. 2012, pp.85-95.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huang D Y, Yocum K, Snoeren A C. High-fidelity switch models for software-defined network emulation. In Proc. HotSDN, Aug. 2013, pp.43-48.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kreutz D, Ramos F M V, Paulo Esteves Verssimo et al. Software-defined networking: A comprehensive survey. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2015, 103(1): 14-76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Adrichem N L M, Doerr C, Kuipers F A. OpenNet-Mon: Network monitoring in OpenFlow software-defined networks. In Proc. Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), May 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu C, Lumezanu C, Sharma A et al. Software-defined latency monitoring in data center networks. In Proc. PAM, Mar. 2015, pp.360-372.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cui Y, Xiao S, Liao C et al. Data centers as software-defined networks: Traffic redundancy elimination with wireless cards at routers. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 2013, 31(12): 2658-2672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han K, Hu Z, Luo J et al. RUSH: Routing and scheduling for hybrid data center networks. In Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Apr. 2015, pp.415-423.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Narisetty R R, Dane L, Malishevskiy A et al. OpenFlow configuration protocol: Implementation for the of management plane. In Proc. the 2nd GENI Research and Educational Experiment Workshop, Mar. 2013, pp.66-67.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mckeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H et al. OpenFlow: Enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2008, 38(2): 69-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhawan M, Poddar R, Mahajan K et al. SPHINX: Detecting security attacks in software-defined networks. In Proc. NDSS, Feb 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    YuM, Jose L, Miao R. Software-defined traffic measurement with OpenSketch. In Proc. NSDI, Apr. 2013, pp.29-42.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Braun W, Menth M. Software-defined networking using OpenFlow: Protocols, applications and architectural design choices. Future Internet, 2014, 6(2): 302-336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim H, Feamster N. Improving network management with software-defined networking. IEEE Communications Magazine, 2013, 51(2): 114-119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chowdhury S R, Bari M F, Ahmed R et al. PayLess: A low cost network monitoring framework for software-defined networks. In Proc. NOMS 2014, May 2014, pp.1-9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gill P, Jain N, Nagappan N. Understanding network failures in data centers: Measurement, analysis, and implications. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2011, 41(4): 350-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gandhi R, Liu H H, Hu Y C et al. Duet: Cloud scale load balancing with hardware and software. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2015, 44(4): 27-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xie D, Ding N, Hu Y C et al. The only constant is change: Incorporating time-varying network reservations in data centers. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2012, 42(4): 199-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang H, Cai Z P, Liu Q et al. A survey on security-aware measurement in SDN. Security and Communication Networks, 2018, doi: (to be appeared)
  22. 22.
    Xia J, Cai Z P, Hu G et al. An active defense solution for ARP spoofing in OpenFlow network. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 2018. (to be appeared)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ComputerNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceCity University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations