Performance Analysis of POX and Ryu with Different SDN Topologies

This paper deals with the performance comparison of two python-based Software Defined Network (SDN) controllers i.e. POX and Ryu under different network topologies such as Single, Linear, Tree, Dumbbell, Data Center Networks (DCN) and Software-Defined naval networks which use satellite communication systems (SATCOM) i.e. SDN-SAT [1]. Experimental results, validated through Mininet has clearly indicated that Ryu has superior performance i.e. A TCP throughput increase of 25.56%, 282.54%, 44.85%, 19.88%, 45.45% and latency decrease of 93.48%, 99.96%, 99.90%, 97.08%, 99.33% in single, linear, tree, dumbbell and DCN topologies respectively. Similarly, in SDN-SAT topology Ryu has 0.21% increase in TCP throughput and 34.62% decrease in latency as compared to POX controller.

[1]  Upena D. Dalal,et al.  Performance Analysis of SDN/OpenFlow Controllers: POX Versus Floodlight , 2018, Wirel. Pers. Commun..

[2]  Ailton Akira Shinoda,et al.  Using Mininet for emulation and prototyping Software-Defined Networks , 2014, 2014 IEEE Colombian Conference on Communications and Computing (COLCOM).

[3]  Aamir Shafi,et al.  An architectural evaluation of SDN controllers , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC).

[4]  Randy Presuhn.  Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) , 2002, RFC.

[5]  George Suciu,et al.  A comparison between several Software Defined Networking controllers , 2015, 2015 12th International Conference on Telecommunication in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services (TELSIKS).

[6]  Brian Lebiednik,et al.  A Survey and Evaluation of Data Center Network Topologies , 2016, ArXiv.

[7]  Upena D. Dalal,et al.  Design and Performance Analysis of OpenFlow-Enabled Network Topologies Using Mininet , .

[8]  Nick McKeown,et al.  OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks , 2008, CCRV.

[9]  A. Neeraja,et al.  Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Cc by Improving Network Management with Software Defined Networking , 2022 .

[10]  Navtej Singh Ghumman,et al.  Network Programmability Using POX Controller , 2014 .

[11]  Zhihao Shang,et al.  Delay Evaluation of OpenFlow Network Based on Queueing Model , 2016, ArXiv.

[12]  Mario Gerla,et al.  Software Defined naval network for satellite communications (SDN-SAT) , 2016, MILCOM 2016 - 2016 IEEE Military Communications Conference.

[13]  Marcial P. Fernandez,et al.  Evaluating OpenFlow Controller Paradigms , 2013 .

[14]  Byrav Ramamurthy,et al.  Network Innovation using OpenFlow: A Survey , 2014, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[15]  Marcial P. Fernandez,et al.  Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive , 2013, 2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA).

[16]  S. Kaur,et al.  Performance analysis of python based openflow controllers , 2016 .

[17]  Mario Gerla,et al.  Traffic optimization in software defined naval network for satellite communications , 2017, MILCOM 2017 - 2017 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM).

[18]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Improving network management with software defined networking , 2013, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[19]  S VinayakaK,et al.  Performance Evaluation of High Speed TCP Variants in Dumbbell Network , 2014 .

[20]  Alexander Shalimov,et al.  Advanced study of SDN/OpenFlow controllers , 2013 .