Loading…
Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive
The OpenFlow architecture is a proposal from the Clean Slate initiative to define a new Internet architecture where the network devices are simple, and the control and management plane is performed by a centralized controller. The simplicity and centralization architecture makes it reliable and inex...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Conference Proceeding |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Request full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c285t-4d3f874b2c4d105fd6ed10306aa1fc02de25df7b3cece5acc1e9ff6b22e5c323 |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 1016 |
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 1009 |
| container_title | |
| container_volume | |
| creator | Fernandez, M. P. |
| description | The OpenFlow architecture is a proposal from the Clean Slate initiative to define a new Internet architecture where the network devices are simple, and the control and management plane is performed by a centralized controller. The simplicity and centralization architecture makes it reliable and inexpensive, but the centralization causes problems concerning controller scalability. An OpenFlow controller has two operations paradigm: reactive and proactive. This paper proposes a methodology to evaluate OpenFlow controller performance. The performances of both paradigms were analyzed in different known controllers. The performance evaluation was done in a real environment and emulation. It was tested distinct OpenFlow controller and using a different amount of OpenFlow devices. Finally, we will present some conclusions about the controller scalability. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1109/AINA.2013.113 |
| format | conference_proceeding |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>ieee_6IE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_6531863</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>6531863</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>6531863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c285t-4d3f874b2c4d105fd6ed10306aa1fc02de25df7b3cece5acc1e9ff6b22e5c323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotzE9PwjAYgPH6LxGQoycv_QLDtm_fbvNGFlAiEaIcuJGue0tqxka6RcO3lwRPvzyXh7FHKSZSivx5uviYTpSQcE64YuM8zURqctQ5QnbNBgpAJWgwu2FDqU0KiCi2t2wgzyZa4_aeDbvuWwgwOsUBey_aw9HG0Oz56kjNvG5_edE2fWzrmiJf22irsD90_MvZ2pahDv3phX-SdX34IW6biq9je6kHdudt3dH43xHbzGeb4i1Zrl4XxXSZOJVhn-gKfJbqUjldSYG-MnQWhLFWeidURQorn5bgyBFa5yTl3ptSKUIHCkbs6bINRLQ7xnCw8bQzCDIzAH-K21H5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</source><creator>Fernandez, M. P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fernandez, M. P.</creatorcontrib><description>The OpenFlow architecture is a proposal from the Clean Slate initiative to define a new Internet architecture where the network devices are simple, and the control and management plane is performed by a centralized controller. The simplicity and centralization architecture makes it reliable and inexpensive, but the centralization causes problems concerning controller scalability. An OpenFlow controller has two operations paradigm: reactive and proactive. This paper proposes a methodology to evaluate OpenFlow controller performance. The performances of both paradigms were analyzed in different known controllers. The performance evaluation was done in a real environment and emulation. It was tested distinct OpenFlow controller and using a different amount of OpenFlow devices. Finally, we will present some conclusions about the controller scalability.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1550-445X</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 146735550X</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9781467355506</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2332-5658</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9780769549538</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 0769549535</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/AINA.2013.113</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IEEPAD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>Computer architecture ; Control systems ; Network topology ; OpenFlow ; OpenFlow Controller ; Performance evaluation ; Proposals ; Protocols ; Scalability ; Software</subject><ispartof>2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), 2013, p.1009-1016</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c285t-4d3f874b2c4d105fd6ed10306aa1fc02de25df7b3cece5acc1e9ff6b22e5c323</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6531863$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,780,784,789,790,2058,27925,54555,54920,54932</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6531863$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fernandez, M. P.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive</title><title>2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA)</title><addtitle>aina</addtitle><description>The OpenFlow architecture is a proposal from the Clean Slate initiative to define a new Internet architecture where the network devices are simple, and the control and management plane is performed by a centralized controller. The simplicity and centralization architecture makes it reliable and inexpensive, but the centralization causes problems concerning controller scalability. An OpenFlow controller has two operations paradigm: reactive and proactive. This paper proposes a methodology to evaluate OpenFlow controller performance. The performances of both paradigms were analyzed in different known controllers. The performance evaluation was done in a real environment and emulation. It was tested distinct OpenFlow controller and using a different amount of OpenFlow devices. Finally, we will present some conclusions about the controller scalability.</description><subject>Computer architecture</subject><subject>Control systems</subject><subject>Network topology</subject><subject>OpenFlow</subject><subject>OpenFlow Controller</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Proposals</subject><subject>Protocols</subject><subject>Scalability</subject><subject>Software</subject><issn>1550-445X</issn><issn>2332-5658</issn><isbn>146735550X</isbn><isbn>9781467355506</isbn><isbn>9780769549538</isbn><isbn>0769549535</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><recordid>eNotzE9PwjAYgPH6LxGQoycv_QLDtm_fbvNGFlAiEaIcuJGue0tqxka6RcO3lwRPvzyXh7FHKSZSivx5uviYTpSQcE64YuM8zURqctQ5QnbNBgpAJWgwu2FDqU0KiCi2t2wgzyZa4_aeDbvuWwgwOsUBey_aw9HG0Oz56kjNvG5_edE2fWzrmiJf22irsD90_MvZ2pahDv3phX-SdX34IW6biq9je6kHdudt3dH43xHbzGeb4i1Zrl4XxXSZOJVhn-gKfJbqUjldSYG-MnQWhLFWeidURQorn5bgyBFa5yTl3ptSKUIHCkbs6bINRLQ7xnCw8bQzCDIzAH-K21H5</recordid><startdate>201303</startdate><enddate>201303</enddate><creator>Fernandez, M. P.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IL</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201303</creationdate><title>Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive</title><author>Fernandez, M. P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c285t-4d3f874b2c4d105fd6ed10306aa1fc02de25df7b3cece5acc1e9ff6b22e5c323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Computer architecture</topic><topic>Control systems</topic><topic>Network topology</topic><topic>OpenFlow</topic><topic>OpenFlow Controller</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Proposals</topic><topic>Protocols</topic><topic>Scalability</topic><topic>Software</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fernandez, M. P.</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan All Online (POP All Online) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library Online</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP All) 1998-Present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fernandez, M. P.</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive</atitle><btitle>2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA)</btitle><stitle>aina</stitle><date>2013-03</date><risdate>2013</risdate><spage>1009</spage><epage>1016</epage><pages>1009-1016</pages><issn>1550-445X</issn><eissn>2332-5658</eissn><isbn>146735550X</isbn><isbn>9781467355506</isbn><eisbn>9780769549538</eisbn><eisbn>0769549535</eisbn><coden>IEEPAD</coden><abstract>The OpenFlow architecture is a proposal from the Clean Slate initiative to define a new Internet architecture where the network devices are simple, and the control and management plane is performed by a centralized controller. The simplicity and centralization architecture makes it reliable and inexpensive, but the centralization causes problems concerning controller scalability. An OpenFlow controller has two operations paradigm: reactive and proactive. This paper proposes a methodology to evaluate OpenFlow controller performance. The performances of both paradigms were analyzed in different known controllers. The performance evaluation was done in a real environment and emulation. It was tested distinct OpenFlow controller and using a different amount of OpenFlow devices. Finally, we will present some conclusions about the controller scalability.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/AINA.2013.113</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| identifier | ISSN: 1550-445X |
| ispartof | 2013 IEEE 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), 2013, p.1009-1016 |
| issn | 1550-445X 2332-5658 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_ieee_primary_6531863 |
| source | IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings |
| subjects | Computer architecture Control systems Network topology OpenFlow OpenFlow Controller Performance evaluation Proposals Protocols Scalability Software |
| title | Comparing OpenFlow Controller Paradigms Scalability: Reactive and Proactive |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T18%3A09%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_6IE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Comparing%20OpenFlow%20Controller%20Paradigms%20Scalability:%20Reactive%20and%20Proactive&rft.btitle=2013%20IEEE%2027th%20International%20Conference%20on%20Advanced%20Information%20Networking%20and%20Applications%20(AINA)&rft.au=Fernandez,%20M.%20P.&rft.date=2013-03&rft.spage=1009&rft.epage=1016&rft.pages=1009-1016&rft.issn=1550-445X&rft.eissn=2332-5658&rft.isbn=146735550X&rft.isbn_list=9781467355506&rft.coden=IEEPAD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/AINA.2013.113&rft.eisbn=9780769549538&rft.eisbn_list=0769549535&rft_dat=%3Cieee_6IE%3E6531863%3C/ieee_6IE%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c285t-4d3f874b2c4d105fd6ed10306aa1fc02de25df7b3cece5acc1e9ff6b22e5c323%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=6531863&rfr_iscdi=true |