4.6 Article

Heuristic Approaches to the Controller Placement Problem in Large Scale SDN Networks

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSM.2015.2402432

关键词

SDN; NFV; controller placement; POCO; OpenFlow; resilience; failure tolerance; latency; multiobjective optimization; simulated annealing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Software Defined Networking (SDN) marks a paradigm shift towards an externalized and logically centralized network control plane. A particularly important task in SDN architectures is that of controller placement, i.e., the positioning of a limited number of resources within a network to meet various requirements. These requirements range from latency constraints to failure tolerance and load balancing. In most scenarios, at least some of these objectives are competing, thus no single best placement is available and decision makers need to find a balanced trade-off. This work presents POCO, a framework for Pareto-based Optimal COntroller placement that provides operators with Pareto optimal placements with respect to different performance metrics. In its default configuration, POCO performs an exhaustive evaluation of all possible placements. While this is practically feasible for small and medium sized networks, realistic time and resource constraints call for an alternative in the context of large scale networks or dynamic networks whose properties change over time. For these scenarios, the POCO toolset is extended by a heuristic approach that is less accurate, but yields faster computation times. An evaluation of this heuristic is performed on a collection of real world network topologies from the Internet Topology Zoo. Utilizing a measure for quantifying the error introduced by the heuristic approach allows an analysis of the resulting trade-off between time and accuracy. Additionally, the proposed methods can be extended to solve similar virtual functions placement problems which appear in the context of Network Functions Virtualization (NFV).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据