2021
DOI: 10.1109/tcc.2019.2914387
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Processing-Resource Sharing on the Placement of Chained Virtual Network Functions

Abstract: Network Function Virtualization (NFV) provides higher flexibility for network operators and reduces the complexity in network service deployment. Using NFV, Virtual Network Functions (VNF) can be located in various network nodes and chained together in a Service Function Chain (SFC) to provide a specific service. Consolidating multiple VNFs in a smaller number of locations would allow decreasing capital expenditures. However, excessive consolidation of VNFs might cause additional latency penalties due to proce… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
50
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
50
0
Order By: Relevance
“…λ c i,u includes the time taken by the VSNF to process the packet and the overhead of the virtualization technology (VMware, KVM, QEMU virtual machines, Docker containers, etc.). For simplicity, we do not model the delays due to the CPU scheduler operations implemented on the physical node [26]. Based on the observations in [27], [28], [29], λ c i,u is modeled as a convex function of the traffic load of the chain, and its value is computed by considering the impact of other VSNFs co-located on the same physical node.…”
Section: B Constraintsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…λ c i,u includes the time taken by the VSNF to process the packet and the overhead of the virtualization technology (VMware, KVM, QEMU virtual machines, Docker containers, etc.). For simplicity, we do not model the delays due to the CPU scheduler operations implemented on the physical node [26]. Based on the observations in [27], [28], [29], λ c i,u is modeled as a convex function of the traffic load of the chain, and its value is computed by considering the impact of other VSNFs co-located on the same physical node.…”
Section: B Constraintsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first one that satisfies Constraint (14) is the accepted solution (lines [18][19]. Finally, the algorithm updates the values of γ i and β i by removing the resources consumed with the accepted solution and stores the mapping of its chains in the set C that records all the active chains in the network (lines [26][27].…”
Section: The Pess Heuristic Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Buh et al [32] defined a novel adaptive traffic distribution among multi-core architectures, this method was experimentally validated by tests on Linux Bridge networking devices. Savi et al [33] considered two penalties include context switching costs (causing by repeated context loading/saving on the same CPU) and upscaling costs (causing by load-balancing needs of VNFs among multiple CPU cores). Both of them were verified to affect the embedding of SFCs.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A second example is provided in Figure 5, which represents the SFCs required for the deployment of an adaptive wireless video streaming service and its associated SRD graph taken from [35]. Figure 5a represents the VNFs for the user-plane of the 5G-RAN (RU, DU, CU-UP), the 5G-Core (UPF), and the server and Video Optimization Controller (VOC) placed in the data network.…”
Section: B Srd Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Details of each resource type as well as associated SRD graph are given in Table III. Numerical values in Table III have been adapted from [35]. In the following, we consider multiple demands from different SPs for this type of slice.…”
Section: A Resource Provisioning Vs Direct Embeddingmentioning
confidence: 99%