Convergence of Intra-domain Routing with Centralized Control

  • Jing Fu
  • Peter Sjödin
  • Gunnar Karlsson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4982)


The decentralized control scheme for routing in current IP networks has been questioned, and a centralized routing scheme has been proposed as an alternative. In this paper, we compare the convergence of centralized control scheme with decentralized link-state routing protocols. We first identify the components of the convergence time. Thereafter, we study how to achieve fast routing convergence in networks with centralized control. In particular, we analyze how to distribute forwarding information efficiently. Finally, we perform simulation studies on the convergence time for both real and synthetic network topologies, and study the impact of control element location, link weights, and number of failures on the convergence time. The results show that the centralized control scheme can provide faster routing convergence than link-state routing protocols.


Convergence Time Link Failure Link Weight Short Path Tree Line Card 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Rexford, J., Greenberg, A., Hjalmtysson, G., Maltz, D.A., Myers, A., Xie, G., Zhan, J., Zhang, H.: Network-wide decision making: Toward a wafer-thin control plane. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM HotNets Workshop (November 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenberg, A., Hjalmtysson, G., Maltz, D.A., Myers, A., Rexford, J., Xie, G., Yan, H., Zhan, J., Zhang, H.: Clean slate 4D approach to network control and management. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 35(5) (October 2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Császár, A., Enyedi, G., Hidell, M., Rétvári, G., Sjödin, P.: Converging the evolution of router architectures and IP networks. IEEE Network Magazine 21(4) (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feamster, N., Balakrishnan, H., Rexford, J., Shaikh, A., van der Merwe, J.: The case for separating routing from routers. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture (August 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caesar, M., Caldwell, D., Feamster, N., Rexford, J., Shaikh, A., Merwe, J.: Design and implementation of a routing control platform. In: Proc. of Networked Systems Design and Implementation (May 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaikh, A., Greenberg, A.: Experience in black-box ospf measurement. In: Proc. of the First ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurement (November 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alaettinoglu, C., Jacobson, V., Yu, H.: Towards millisecond IGP convergence. In: The North American Network Operators’ Group (NANOG) 20, Washington, DC (October 2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Basu, A., Riecke, J.: Stability issues in OSPF routing. In: Proc of ACM SIGCOMM 2001, New York, USA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Evans, J., Bonaventure, O.: Achieving sub-second IGP convergence in large IP networks. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35(3), 35–44 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahajan, R., Spring, N., Wetherall, D., Anderson, T.: Inferring link weights using end-to-end measurements. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Workshop (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E., Rivest, R.L., Stein, C.: Introduction to algorithms, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Narvaez, P., Siu, K.-Y., Tzeng, H.-Y.: New dynamic SPT algorithm based on a ball-and-string model. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 9, 706–718 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demetrescu, C., Italiano, G.F.: A new approach to dynamic all pairs shortest paths. In: Proc. of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, G., Tzeng, N.F.: TCAM-Based forwarding engine with minimum independent prefix set (MIPS) for fast updating. In: Proc. of IEEE ICC 2006 (June 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Route Views Project, University of Oregon.
  16. 16.
    Swedish University Network (SUNET), Available:,
  17. 17.
    Renesys. SSFNet, Scalable simulation framework for network models.
  18. 18.
    Waxman, B.M.: Routing of multipoint connections. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 6(9), 1617–1622 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barabasi, A., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286 (October 15, 1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spring, N., Mahajan, R., Wetherall, D.: Measuring ISP topologies with Rocketfuel. In: Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM 2002 (August 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jing Fu
    • 1
  • Peter Sjödin
    • 2
  • Gunnar Karlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Electrical EngineeringACCESS Linnaeus CenterSweden
  2. 2.School of Information and Communication Technology KTHRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations