Comparison of Controllers in Software-Defined Networking

Furqan Jameel*, Ibrahim Khan**
*-** COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Periodicity:May - July'2015
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jcc.2.3.4790

Abstract

Emerging trends such as cloud computing and big data have altered the requirements of future internet, for which low latency, extraordinary bandwidth and dynamic management are very significant. In order to adapt to the new needs, Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been considered as one of the most favorable solutions. In SDN approach, centralized entities called "controllers" manages and controls the network via well-defined APIs (Application Program Interface). The forwarding layer has a set of clear and definite rules. Traffic passing through these switches is compared with these rules and a match-action method is applied to this traffic. However, with the ever growing demand of traffic, the need of more sophisticated, secure and high performance controllers has increased. Therefore, in this paper, the authors have presents performance (in latency, throughput perspective) and security evaluation for some of the most well-known controllers: Maestro, Floodlight, NOX, OpenMul, Beacon, OpenIRIS. The survey shows that OpenIRIS controller has the lowest latency, and the OpenMul controller shows the highest throughput. Whereas, security wise OpenIRIS is the least vulnerable controller.

Keywords

SDN, Controller, Throughput, Latency.

How to Cite this Article?

Jameel, F., and Khan, I. (2015). Comparison of Controllers in Software-Defined Networking. i-manager’s Journal on Cloud Computing, 2(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.26634/jcc.2.3.4790

References

[1]. A. Lara, A. Kolasani and B. Ramamurthy, (2013). "Network innovation using openflow: A survey". IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 493–512.
[2]. M. Casado, (2014). "List of OpenFlow Software Projects". Retrived from https:// yuba.stanford.edu / ~casado/of-sw.html.
[3]. M. P. Fernandez, (2013). "Comparing openflow controller paradigms scalability: Reactive and proactive". in Advanced Information Networking and th Applications (AINA), IEEE 27 International Conference on, pp. 1009-1016.
[4]. S. H. Yeganeh, A. Tootoonchian and Y. Ganjali, (2013). "On scalability of software-defined networking". IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.136- 141.
[5]. R. Sherwood, G. Gibb, K.-K. Yap, G. Appenzeller, M. Casado, N. McKeown, and G. Parulkar, (2009). "Flowvisor: A network virtualization layer”. OpenFlow Switch Consortium, Tech. Rep.,
[6]. Turull, Daniel, Markus Hidell, and Peter Sjodin (2014). “Performance Evaluation of Openflow Controllers for th Network Virtualization”. IEEE 15 International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing (HPSR).
[7]. Ahemed Sonba and Hassan (2014). "Performance comparison of state of the art Openflow controllers". Tech. Rep.,
[8]. “LBNL/ICSI Enterprise Tracing Project ”, http:// www.icir.org/enterprise-racing/.
[9]. B. Lee, S. H. Park, J. Shin and S. Yang, (2014). "IRIS: The th Openflow-based Recursive SDN controller", in 16 International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), pp. 1227-1231.
[10]. T. Koponen, M. Casado, N. Gude, J. Stribling, L. Poutievski, M. Zhu, and S. Shenker, (2010). Onix: "A Distributed Control Platform for Large-scale Production Networks", In OSDI, Vol. 10, pp. 1-6.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.