4.6 Article

Simplifying Flow Updates in Software-Defined Networks Using Atoman

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 39083-39097

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2892557

关键词

Software-defined Networks; flow updates; intents

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61571098, 61871097]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [ZYGX2016J217]
  3. 111 Project [B14039]
  4. Open Foundation of Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications [SKLNST-2016-2-24]
  5. China Scholarship Council [201806070026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flow updates are common in today's networks, and software-defined networking (SDN) enables network operators to reconfigure switches for updating flows easily. However, the implementation of flow updates requires to meet many different expectations regarding consistency, resource constraints, and performance. To carry updates out as intended, network operators often need to spend significant effort in update management, developing complex network optimizations and customized heuristics on a case-by-case basis. In this paper, we strive to simplify the flow updates in SDN networks. To this end, we present Atoman, a framework that uses high-level abstractions to capture various update intents and formulates flow updates problems as segment-based update scheduling optimizations to obtain satisfied update solutions. The captured update intents are translated into constraints and objectives of update scheduling optimizations. By extracting critical updating flows and employing decomposition techniques, Atoman can efficiently reduce the scale of problems in each solving and generate near-optimal update solutions. We conduct extensive simulations to evaluate Atoman and the simulation results show that Atoman significantly saves operator efforts in managing flow updates and provides comparable or better efficiency than prior customized solutions.

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