4.7 Article

Improve Service Chaining Performance with Optimized Middlebox Placement

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SERVICES COMPUTING
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 560-573

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TSC.2015.2502252

Keywords

Service chaining; middlebox placement; performance optimization; algorithm design

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61301080, 61171065, 61273214, 91338203, 91338102]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2013CB329105]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous works have proposed various approaches to implement service chaining by routing traffic through the desired middleboxes according to pre-defined policies. However, no matter what routing scheme is used, the performance of service chaining depends on where these middleboxes are placed. Thus, in this paper, we study middlebox placement problem, i.e., given network information and policy specifications, we attempt to determine the optimal locations to place the middleboxes so that the performance is optimized. The performance metrics studied in this paper include the end-to-end delay and the bandwidth consumption, which cover both users' and network providers' interests. We first formulate it as 0-1 programming problem, and prove it is NP-hard. We then propose two heuristic algorithms to obtain the sub-optimal solutions. The first algorithm is a greedy algorithm, and the second algorithm is based on simulated annealing. Through extensive simulations, we show that in comparison with a baseline algorithm, the proposed algorithms can reduce 22 percent end-to-end delay and save 38 percent bandwidth consumption on average. The formulation and proposed algorithms have no special assumption on network topology or policy specifications, therefore, they have broad range of applications in various types of networks such as enterprise, data center and broadband access networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available