Solutions for adopting software defined network in practice

Software defined networking (SDN) has emerged as a new network paradigm, which decouples both control and management planes from data plane by implementing control and management at a (logically) centralized node, i.e., the controller. The data plane communicates with controller by using an open programming interface (like Openflow protocol1). The reference SDN architecture is given in Figure 1 and explained as follows. Data plane: The data plane consists of standard switching devices, acting as routers, switches, and access points depending on the how they are programmed. A forwarding table is available in each switching device. When a data packet arrives at the switching device, the latter looks up its forwarding table whether an entry exists for the corresponding flow. If yes, then the data packet is forwarded/dropped as per action specified in the entry. Otherwise, the switching device buffers the data packet and sends a message to the controller to ask for instructions on how to process the packet. The controller sends back a forwarding rule to install in the forwarding table, which programs the action that the switching device must apply for the buffered data packet, and eventually for the future packets belonging to the same flow. Control plane: The controller acts as the “network brain” and is responsible for computing the forwarding behavior for the data packets based on the network topology, the network requirements (e.g., specified throughout access control list (ACL) policies), and the configuration of other network management functions (e.g., load balancing). The controller computes the forwarding decision and installs the corresponding rules in the forwarding tables present in the switching devices. Management plane: The management plane specifies the network applications (like load balancing, firewall, and monitoring) developed by the network operator. Plane interfaces: These planes in SDN interact with each other through standardized interfaces. The basic interfaces are (a) the southbound interface, used for communication between data plane and control plane, and (b) the northbound interface, used for communication between control plane and management plane. The SDN architecture has several advantages over the traditional networks. First, it centralizes the control in the SDN controller allowing a single and coherent view of the network state, simplifying the development of complex network applications and enabling the network administrator to push specific policies across the entire network. Second, the SDN architecture allows to evolve the control plane without changing the switching devices, since their actual behavior is programmed at the controller and can be reprogrammed at wish. Third, in traditional networks, the network administrator has to utilize management systems and/or manually define and implement security policies (e.g., ACL) at several switching devices. Instead, in SDN, security and/or traffic engineering policies can be defined just at the controller, and these will be forced in the whole network.

[1]  Xiaohua Jia,et al.  Compressive Traffic Monitoring in Hybrid SDN , 2018, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[2]  Clarence Filsfils,et al.  Segment Routing interworking with LDP , 2018 .

[3]  Sajal K. Das,et al.  Software Defined Networking Meets Information Centric Networking: A Survey , 2018, IEEE Access.

[4]  Yuan Zhang,et al.  A survey on software defined networking with multiple controllers , 2018, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[5]  Hyunseung Choo,et al.  Rapid recovery from link failures in software-defined networks , 2017, Journal of Communications and Networks.

[6]  Hyunseung Choo,et al.  Pre-provisioning of local protection for handling dual-failures in OpenFlow-based networks , 2017, 2017 13th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM).

[7]  Salvatore Pontarelli,et al.  Implementing advanced network functions for datacenters with stateful programmable data planes , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks (LANMAN).

[8]  Andrea Bianco,et al.  The Role of Inter-Controller Traffic for Placement of Distributed SDN Controllers , 2016, Comput. Commun..

[9]  Nadir Shah,et al.  Auto-Configuration of ACL Policy in Case of Topology Change in Hybrid SDN , 2016, IEEE Access.

[10]  Magnos Martinello,et al.  A Survey on SDN Programming Languages: Toward a Taxonomy , 2016, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[11]  Zhi-Li Zhang,et al.  A Virtual Id Routing Protocol for Future Dynamics Networks and Its Implementation Using the SDN Paradigm , 2016, Journal of Network and Systems Management.

[12]  Anshuman Mishra,et al.  A Framework for OpenFlow-like Policy-based Routing in Hybrid Software Defined Networks , 2016, INC.

[13]  Barry E. Mullins,et al.  SDN shim: Controlling legacy devices , 2015, 2015 IEEE 40th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN).

[14]  David Clark,et al.  A Purpose-built Global Network: Google’s Move to SDN , 2015, ACM Queue.

[15]  Qiang Xu,et al.  Telekinesis: controlling legacy switch routing with OpenFlow in hybrid networks , 2015, SOSR.

[16]  Shahbaz Akhtar Abid,et al.  3D-RP: A DHT-Based Routing Protocol for MANETs , 2014, Comput. J..

[17]  Eric Keller,et al.  ClosedFlow: openflow-like control over proprietary devices , 2014, HotSDN.

[18]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  Panopticon: Reaping the Benefits of Incremental SDN Deployment in Enterprise Networks , 2014, USENIX Annual Technical Conference.

[19]  Fernando M. V. Ramos,et al.  Software-Defined Networking: A Comprehensive Survey , 2014, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[20]  George Varghese,et al.  Forwarding metamorphosis: fast programmable match-action processing in hardware for SDN , 2013, SIGCOMM.

[21]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  Incremental SDN deployment in enterprise networks , 2013, Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communication.

[22]  David Walker,et al.  Frenetic: a network programming language , 2011, ICFP.

[23]  David A. Maltz,et al.  Towards systematic design of enterprise networks , 2011, TNET.