Experimenting With Scalability of Beacon Controller in Software Defined Network

1. Experimenting With Scalability of Beacon Controller in Software Defined Network Tony Manuel Dr.BhargaviGoswami Department of Computer Science CHRIST(Deemed to be University)

2. Presentation Outline • Journal Details • Introduction • Traditional Network • Software Defined Network • Limitations of SDN • Research Objective • Implementation • Beacon Controller • Experimental Scenario • Analysis • Conclusion

3. Publication Details International Journal Of Recent Technology And Engineering ISSN 2277-3878 B Impact Factor: 5.11 https://www.ijrte.org/

4. Introduction

5. Traditional Network Closed systems Coupled Data and Control Plane

6. Traditional Network 3 2 Host -B 1 5 4 Host -A

7. Limitations of Traditional Networks • Cannot be programmed • Cannot dynamically change according to network conditions • No Innovation

8. What’s the solution?

10. Software Defined Networking LOGIC Data plane and control planes are separated from the switch. Control Plane can be programmed as per the network requirement Control Plane

11. SDN vs Traditional Networks

12. SDN Architecture

13. Software Defined Networking • Step 1: During data transfer , the switch then checks the flow rule for the particular packet in the flow table. • Step 2: If any match is found in the flow table, the instruction particular to that packet is then executed. • Step 3: If no match is found in the flow table, the packet is then forward to the controller through a secure channel. • Step 4: Controller Updates the flow table of the switch . • Step 5: Once controllers make changes in the flow table the packets are send back to the switch with the forwarding instructions • Step 6: The switch then forwards the data to the destination according to the information received from the controller.

14. Software Defined Networking Controller 3 Flow Table 2 5 Host-B Host-A 4 1

15. Limitation • When the size of the network grows the data flow increases and the controller will have to perform various task to handle the requests from the switches. • This may lead the controller to become overloaded with requests which the controller may not be able to handle in an efficient way . • Therefore increased load on the controller is one scalability issue in SDN.

16. Primary Objectives • In this paper, authors are evaluating the performance of Beacon controller using scalability parameter on network emulation tool Mininet and IPERF. • The experiments are performed on multiple scenarios of topology size range from 50 to 1000 nodes and further analyzing the controller performance.

17. How do we implement SDN? • Network Simulation Tool Mininet • Virtual Hosts • Switches • Controllers • Links. • SDN Controller Beacon / Floodlight / Nox / Pox / Onos 3. Virtual Machine

18. Configuration of Virtual Machine

19. BEACON Controller

20. Experimental Scenario

21. Emperimental Scenario contd.. • Once the topology is up and running, a client-server connection is established between the first host and the last host using their ip address. • Configure host 1 as the server by typing the command "iperf3 -s -p 5566 -i 1 > result.txt" on the console of h1 • Configure host 50 (for scenario 1) as the client by typing the command "iperf3 -c 10.0.0.1 -p 5566 -t 150" • After data transfer terminate the client server connection and extract the values

22. Sample Values Accepted connection from 10.0.0.50, port 45714[121] local 10.0.0.1 port 5566 connected to 10.0.0.50 port 45716[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth[121] 0.00-1.00 sec 3.35 GBytes 3432 MBytes/sec [121] 1.00-2.00 sec 2.40 GBytes 2456 MBytes/sec [121] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.51 GBytes 1546 MBytes/sec [121] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.72 GBytes 1761 MBytes/sec [121] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.81 GBytes 1852 MBytes/sec [121] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.76 GBytes 1806 MBytes/sec [121] 6.00-7.00 sec 2.33 GBytes 2388 MBytes/sec [121] 7.00-8.00 sec 2.19 GBytes 2245 MBytes/sec

23. Graph

24. Analysis

25. Conclusion • The graph of average of every scenario is reducing gradually • In most of the scenarios, the controller is struggling to maintain the connectivity or the throughput is at bottleneck at the verge of burst packet drops. • The controller is recommended to the networking conditions where the number of nodes is not more than 600. • The statistics clearly indicates that the controller is not meant for large scale networking requirements and falls short in maintaining stability

26. REFERENCE • Goswami B., Asadollahi S.S. (2018) Enhancement of LAN Infrastructure Performance for Data Center in Presence of Network Security. In: Lobiyal D., Mansotra V., Singh U. (eds) Next-Generation Networks. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 638. Springer, Singapore. • SalehAsadollahi, Bhargavi H Goswami, (2017) “Revolution in Existing Network under the Influence of Software Defined Network”, Proceedings of the 11th INDIACom, Pages: 1012-1017, IEEE, New Delhi, India. • S Das, B Goswami, S Asadollahi, Investigating Software-Defined Network and Networks-Function Virtualization for Emergent Network-oriented Services, IJIRCCE, Vol.5, Special Issue 2, April 2017, Pg. No. 201 – 205, DOI:10.15680. • SalehAsadollahi ; BhargaviGoswami ; Ahmad SohaibRaoufy ; Hedmilson, (2017), “Scalability of software defined network on floodlight controller using OFNet”, International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Communication, Computer, and Optimization Techniques (ICEECCOT), Pages: 1 – 5, IEEE, Mysore, India. • Nick McKeown; et al. (April 2008). "OpenFlow: Enabling innovation in campus networks". ACM Communications Review. Retrieved 2018-09-01.