Advertisement

Analysis of POX and Ryu Controllers Using Topology Based Hybrid Software Defined Networks

  • K. RohitakshaEmail author
  • A. B. Rajendra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 39)

Abstract

Software Defined Networking (SDN) enables operation and management of communication networks by decoupling the control and forwarding plane. However, replacing the existing legacy switches in the network with the SDN switches leads to the high budget and also pure SDN suffers from scalability and robustness. Hybrid SDN is a new emerging technique in which legacy switches are connected with the SDN switches in order to overcome some of the drawbacks with respect to SDN. In this paper, we compare the performance of two open source controllers namely POX and Ryu, by considering the different Hybrid SDN topologies. The results are taken by running the simulation in Mininet for different QoS requirements in all the topologies.

Keywords

SDN Hybrid SDN POX Ryu 

References

  1. 1.
    POX Controller. Accessed 11 June 2013. http://www.noxrepo.org/pox/about-pox/
  2. 2.
    Ryu. Accessed 11 June 2013. http://osrg.github.io/ryu/
  3. 3.
    Trema. Accessed 11 June 2013. http://trema.github.io/trema/
  4. 4.
    FloodLight. Accessed 11 June 2013. http://www.projectfloodlight.org/floodlight/
  5. 5.
    OpenDaylight. Accessed 11 June 2013. https://www.opendaylight.org/
  6. 6.
    Khondoker, R., Zaalouk, A., Marx, R., Bayarou, K.: Feature-based comparison and selection of software defined networking (SDN) controllers. In: 2014 World Congress on Computer Applications and Information Systems (WCCAIS), 17 January 2014, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shalimov, A., Zuikov, D., Zimarina, D., Pashkov, V., Smeliansky, R.: Advanced study of SDN/OpenFlow controllers. In: Proceedings of the 9th Central & Eastern European Software Engineering Conference, pp. 1–6. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Somaidai, M.B., Yahya, E.: Survey of software components to emulate OpenFlow protocol as an SDN implementation. Am. J. Software Engin. Appl. 3(6), 74–82 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaur, S., Singh, J., Ghumman, N.S.: Network programmability using POX controller (2014). http://sbsstc.ac.in/icccs2014/Papers/Paper28.pdf. Accessed Sept 2015
  10. 10.
    Govindraj, S., Jayaraman, A., Khanna, N., Prakash, K.R.: OpenFlow, load balancing in enterprise networks using Floodlight controller. University of Colorado (2012). http://morse.colorado.edu/~tlen5710/12s. Accessed Sept 2015
  11. 11.
    Mininet an instant virtual network on your laptop (or other PC) (2015). Mininet Team. http://Mininet.org. Accessed Sept 2015
  12. 12.
    NOX. Accessed 11 June 2013. http://www.noxrepo.org/
  13. 13.
    Azodolmolky, S.: Software Defined Networking with OpenFlow. Packet Publishing, Birmingham (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mccauley, J.: Pox: A python-based Openflow controller (2014). http://www.noxrepo.org/pox/about-pox, Accessed Sept 2015
  15. 15.
    Mininet an instant virtual network on your laptop (or other PC) (2015). Mininet Team. http://Mininet.org. Accessed: September 2015
  16. 16.
    Dixit, A., Hao, F., Mukherjee, S., Lakshman, T.V., Kompella, R.: Towards an elastic distributed SDN controller. In: Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM HotSDN (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amin, R., Reisslein, M., Shah, N.: Hybrid SDN networks: a survey of existing approaches. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 20, 3259–3306 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JSS Academy of Technical Education, VTU UniversityBengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Department of CSEVidyavardhaka College of Engineering, VTU Research CenterMysuruIndia
  3. 3.Vidyavardhaka College of EngineeringMysuruIndia

Personalised recommendations