Minimum Control Latency of SDN Controller Placement

SDN is known as a decoupled architecture separatingthe control and data planes. The controller is in charge ofnetwork nodes through a southbound interface. However, it iscostly to impose all controllers to control each node separately. Meanwhile, the layout of controllers affects the network's abilityto respond to network events. Therefore, the controller placementis an important problem in SDN community. When latencyand reliability metrics are both considered, there is usuallyno single best controller placement solution, but a trade-offinstead. Most of deployment schemes based on latency are mainlyfocused on transmission delay (TD) or Propagation delay (PD) atpresent. However, to our best knowledge, no existing works haveconsidered the influence of control latency on SDN controllerplacement problem while control latency makes great sense inquick response to network events. Thus, in this paper, a minimum-control-latency optimized algorithmbased on greedy controlling pattern design is proposed. Theideas and mechanisms are illustrated using the Internet2 OS3Etopology compared to average-latency-optimized placement andworst-case-optimized placement. What's more, the accuracy oflatency measurement is also a main concern in SDN research. Itis not precise enough when measuring only based on Ping results. In this paper, a novel method based on active latency measurementis also presented to obtain more accurate control latency. Extensive experiments have shown that our minimum-controllatency-optimized can improve the imbalance when partitioningSDN domains and achieve the maximum number of nodes percontroller controlled.

[1]  Rob Sherwood,et al.  The controller placement problem , 2012, HotSDN@SIGCOMM.

[2]  Xirong Que,et al.  On reliability-optimized controller placement for Software-Defined Networks , 2014, China Communications.

[3]  Ramsey Michael Faragher,et al.  Understanding the Basis of the Kalman Filter Via a Simple and Intuitive Derivation [Lecture Notes] , 2012, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[4]  Yashar Ganjali,et al.  HyperFlow: A Distributed Control Plane for OpenFlow , 2010, INM/WREN.

[5]  Hua Chen,et al.  Pingmesh: A Large-Scale System for Data Center Network Latency Measurement and Analysis , 2015, SIGCOMM.

[6]  Zhiyang Li,et al.  The SDN controller placement problem for WAN , 2014, 2014 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC).

[7]  T. Başar,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2001 .

[8]  Matthew Roughan,et al.  The Internet Topology Zoo , 2011, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

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

[10]  Xiao Lin,et al.  Minimum control latency of dynamic networks , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM).

[11]  Marina Thottan,et al.  Mazu: Taming Latency in Software Defined Networks , 2014 .

[12]  Hua Chen,et al.  Pingmesh: A Large-Scale System for Data Center Network Latency Measurement and Analysis , 2015, SIGCOMM.

[13]  Nico Bayer,et al.  OpenFlow for Wireless Mesh Networks , 2011, 2011 Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN).

[14]  Francisco J. Ros,et al.  On reliable controller placements in Software-Defined Networks , 2016, Comput. Commun..

[15]  Martín Casado,et al.  Onix: A Distributed Control Platform for Large-scale Production Networks , 2010, OSDI.

[16]  Keqiu Li,et al.  Zebra: An East-West Control Framework for SDN Controllers , 2015, 2015 44th International Conference on Parallel Processing.

[17]  Randy Bush,et al.  From Paris to Tokyo: on the suitability of ping to measure latency , 2013, Internet Measurement Conference.