Resilience of SDNs based On active and passive replication mechanisms

Fonseca, Paulo; Bennesby, Ricardo; Mota, Edjair; Passito, Alexandre

doi:10.1109/glocom.2013.6831399

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fonseca et al [30] described resilience improvement in NOX controller through a primarybackup approach. unlike the distributed approach where the controller will need to collect information from each switch.…”

Section: Switch Migration Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Controller Fault Tolerance Model (Dcft) Using Load Balancing in Software Defined Networking

Lakhani¹,

Kothari²

2019

IJCET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lack of Flexibility, Centralized Control, and Cost are limitations of the traditional network. Software defined networking (SDN) adds flexibility and programmability in network management by separating the control plane from the data plane. Distributed controllers with SDN are logically centralized at control plane and physically distributed at data plane. They are deployed to improve the adeptness and accuracy of the control plane, which could isolate network into few subdomains with independent SDN controllers. Traffic is dynamic and configuration between switch and controller is static. If one of the controllers fails, load imbalance arises. To address this problem of fault tolerance in distributed controller DCFT (Distributed Controller Fault Tolerance) model is proposed in this paper. A novel switch migration method with coordinator controller in a distributed SDN controller is proposed for providing fault tolerance through load balancing. The system architecture of the proposed model with different modules such as coordinator controller election, load collection, decision taking, switch migration, Inter controller messenger designed. On failure of coordinator controller switch migration discussed. Implement DCFT model in Mininet, derived results, The results show that our design could achieve load balancing among distributed controllers while fault occurs, regardless network traffic variation and outperforms static binding controller system with communication overhead, controller load balance rate, and packet delay. We compare our model with CRD (controller redundancy decision), MUSM (maximum utilization switch migration) and ZSM (Zero switch migration) techniques. Simulation analysis performed on custom topology. We compare packet delay, communication overhead and load balancing rate in a custom topology with before and after migration of switches. It's revealed that the DCFT model produces better performance in fault tolerance.network switches without impairing the network operation itself. Figure 8 depicts a communication overhead for the given topology.Since ZSM just arranges single controller, the correspondence overhead between controllers is 0. The single controller is easily in the overloaded state since it needs to process all the flow demands. In this way, correspondence overheads among switches and controllers are most extreme in ZSM. CRD migrates switch to the nearest controller to streamline the selection of target controller, which brings down the overhead between controllers. On the other hand, closest migration is easy to produce traffic congestion that may increase communication overheads between switches and controllers. if multiple switches swarm into nearest controller at the same time. MUSM lessens overhead by adding an extra controller and the communication overhead between switches and controller lowest.DCFT model considers multiple costs and adopts a greedy algorithm to look for the ideal outcome. Design of the DCFT model reduces information interaction of irrelevant controllers by...

show abstract

Section: Switch Migration Algorithmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Controller Fault Tolerance Model (Dcft) Using Load Balancing in Software Defined Networking

Lakhani¹,

Kothari²

2019

IJCET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Em [Fonseca et al 2013] os autores apresentam um estudo em SDN em que as estratégias ativa e passiva são usadas para implementar controladores distribuídos. Além disso, indicam cenários em que utilização de cada técnica pode ser mais efetiva.…”

Section: Trabalhos Relacionadosunclassified

Resilient Strategies to SDN: An Approach Focused on Actively Replicated Controllers

Spalla

Mafioletti

Liberato

et al. 2015

2015 XXXIII Brazilian Symposium on Computer Networks and Distributed Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software Defined Networking (SDN) are based on the separation of control and data planes. The SDN controller, although logically centralized, should be effectively distributed for high availability. Since the specification of OpenFlow 1.2, there are new features that allow the switches to communicate with multiple controllers that can play different roles -master, slave, and equal. However, these roles alone are not sufficient to guarantee a resilient control plane and the actual implementation remains an open challenge for SDN designers. In this paper, we explore the OpenFlow roles for the design of resilient SDN architectures relying on multi-controllers. As a proof of concept, a strategy of active replication was implemented in the Ryu controller, using the OpenReplica service to ensure consistent state among the distributed controllers. The prototype was tested with commodity RouterBoards/MikroTik switches and evaluated for latency in failure recovery and switch migration for different workloads. We observe a set of trade-offs in real experiments with varyin workloads at both the data and control plane. Resumo. As Redes Definidas por Software (SDN) separam os planos de dados e de controle. Embora o controlador seja logicamente centralizado, ele deve ser efetivamente distribuído para garantir alta disponibilidade. Desde a especificação OpenFlow 1.2, há novas funcionalidades que permitem aos elementos da rede se comunicarem com múltiplos controladores, que podem assumir diferentes papéis -master, slave, e equal. Entretanto, esses papéis não são suficientes para garantir resiliência no plano de controle, pois delega-se aos projetistas de redes SDN a responsabilidade por essa implementação. Neste artigo, exploramos os papéis definidos no protocolo OpenFlow no projeto de arquiteturas resilientes SDN com base em multi-controladores. Como prova de conceito uma estratégia de replicação ativa foi implementada no controlador Ryu usando o serviço OpenReplica para garantir a consistência dos estados. O protótipo foi testado com switches RouterBoards/MikroTik comerciais avaliando-se a latência na recuperação de falha e na migração de switches Agradecimentosà CAPES, CNPq e FAPEMIG pelo suporteà execução deste trabalho.

show abstract

“…In virtualized environments, active and passive replication are two common techniques used to achieve this [4]. Since active replication is a solution that offers high resilience and negligible downtime, its use may be seen as the primary alternative [3]. One intuitive solution is to duplicate all the messages sent by a switch, with the intention that both controllers receive a copy and perform identical operations.…”

Section: Problem Definition and Main Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, in the literature of fault-tolerant SDN controllers, Master-Slave controllers are a subclass that address the problem in a simplified way, since there is one central unit (the master) in charge of taking the decisions to be implemented on the data plane. A simple MasterSlave approach was given in [3], where active and passive replication methods are proposed to provide fault tolerance. However, this approach does not consider consistency issues.…”

Section: B Fault Tolerant Sdn Controllersmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fault-Tolerant and Consistent SDN Controller

Gonzalez

Nencioni

Helvik

et al. 2016

2016 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Software-Defined Networking (SDN) is a new paradigm that promises to enhance network flexibility and innovation. However, operators need to thoroughly assess its advantages and threats before they can implement it. Robustness and fault tolerance are among the main criteria to be considered in such assessment. The currently available SDN controllers offer different fault tolerance mechanisms, but there are still many open issues, especially regarding the trade-off between consistency and performance in a fault-tolerant SDN platform. In this paper, we describe existing fault-tolerant SDN controller solutions, and propose a mechanism to design a consistent and fault-tolerant Master-Slave SDN controller that is able to balance consistency and performance. The main objective of this paper is to bring the performance of an SDN Master-Slave controller as close as possible to the one offered by a single controller. This is obtained by introducing a simple replication scheme, combined with a consistency check and a correction mechanism, that influence the performance only during the few intervals when it is needed, instead of being active during the entire operation time.

show abstract

Resilience of SDNs based On active and passive replication mechanisms

Cited by 28 publications

References 16 publications

Distributed Controller Fault Tolerance Model (Dcft) Using Load Balancing in Software Defined Networking

Distributed Controller Fault Tolerance Model (Dcft) Using Load Balancing in Software Defined Networking

Resilient Strategies to SDN: An Approach Focused on Actively Replicated Controllers

A Fault-Tolerant and Consistent SDN Controller

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About