Resilience of SDNs based On active and passive replication mechanisms

Software-Defined Networking is a new paradigm that allows the development of innovative network management applications and provides a new way to look for the resolution of problems which exist throughout the Internet today. In order to simplify the task of managing the network most of SDN architectures uses a centralized network management approach. However, such approach raises, among other problems, the issue of a single point of failure, that can compromise the proper functioning of the network. A proven method to achieve a higher level of network resilience is to use a replication technique. The aim of this work is to investigate: (1) how different replication techniques relate to each other, (2) how each one performs on the task of providing resilience to a SDN, and (3) which technique is the most suitable for different scenarios. Replication techniques are mainly classified in two types: passive and active replication. In the case of passive replication, the client connects with only one controller that processes the requests and updates the other controllers. In active replication, the client connects with multiple controllers that process the request. Our results show that replication is a suitable way to increase resilience in a SDN and to build these services for networks using SDN is straightforward and much less complex.

[1]  Martín Casado,et al.  NOX: towards an operating system for networks , 2008, CCRV.

[2]  Nick McKeown,et al.  MPLS with a simple OPEN control plane , 2011, 2011 Optical Fiber Communication Conference and Exposition and the National Fiber Optic Engineers Conference.

[3]  Nick McKeown,et al.  A network in a laptop: rapid prototyping for software-defined networks , 2010, Hotnets-IX.

[4]  Rob Sherwood,et al.  Carving research slices out of your production networks with OpenFlow , 2010, CCRV.

[5]  Fred B. Schneider,et al.  Implementing fault-tolerant services using the state machine approach: a tutorial , 1990, CSUR.

[6]  Martin Suchara,et al.  BGP safety with spurious updates , 2011, 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[7]  Stanley Lemeshow,et al.  Sample size determination in health studies , 1991 .

[8]  Martín Casado,et al.  Applying NOX to the Datacenter , 2009, HotNets.

[9]  Marcos Rogério Salvador,et al.  QuagFlow: partnering Quagga with OpenFlow , 2010, SIGCOMM '10.

[10]  Jian-Ping Li,et al.  Effects of topologies on network recovery , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Apperceiving Computing and Intelligence Analysis.

[11]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Ethane: taking control of the enterprise , 2007, SIGCOMM.

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

[13]  Leonard Barolli,et al.  A Survey of Internet Mobility , 2009, 2009 International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems.

[14]  Rodrigo Braga,et al.  Lightweight DDoS flooding attack detection using NOX/OpenFlow , 2010, IEEE Local Computer Network Conference.

[15]  Nick McKeown,et al.  Unifying Packet and Circuit Switched Networks , 2009, 2009 IEEE Globecom Workshops.

[16]  Rob Sherwood,et al.  Blueprint for introducing innovation into wireless mobile networks , 2010, VISA '10.

[17]  Fred B. Schneider,et al.  The primary-backup approach , 1993 .

[18]  Marc Lelarge,et al.  A New Perspective on Internet Security using Insurance , 2008, IEEE INFOCOM 2008 - The 27th Conference on Computer Communications.

[19]  Katerina J. Argyraki,et al.  Loss and Delay Accountability for the Internet , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.