The evolution of the current network has challenges of programmability, maintainability and manageability, due to network ossification. This challenge led to the concept of software-defined networking (SDN), to decoup...The evolution of the current network has challenges of programmability, maintainability and manageability, due to network ossification. This challenge led to the concept of software-defined networking (SDN), to decouple the control system from the infrastructure plane caused by ossification. The innovation created a problem with controller placement. That is how to effectively place controllers within a network topology to manage the network of data plane devices from the control plane. The study was designed to empirically evaluate and compare the functionalities of two controller placement algorithms: the POCO and MOCO. The methodology adopted in the study is the explorative and comparative investigation techniques. The study evaluated the performances of the Pareto optimal combination (POCO) and multi-objective combination (MOCO) algorithms in relation to calibrated positions of the controller within a software-defined network. The network environment and measurement metrics were held constant for both the POCO and MOCO models during the evaluation. The strengths and weaknesses of the POCO and MOCO models were justified. The results showed that the latencies of the two algorithms in relation to the GoodNet network are 3100 ms and 2500 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. In Switch to Controller Average Case latency, the performance gives 2598 ms and 2769 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. In Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, the performance shows 2776 ms and 2987 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. The latencies of the two algorithms evaluated in relation to the Savvis network, compared as follows: 2912 ms and 2784 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Switch to Controller Average Case latency, 3129 ms and 3017 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, 2789 ms and 2693 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Average Case Controller to Controller latency, and 2873 ms and 2756 ms for POCO and MOCO in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency respectively. The latencies of the two algorithms evaluated in relation to the AARNet, network compared as follows: 2473 ms and 2129 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Switch to Controller Average Case latency, 2198 ms and 2268 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, 2598 ms and 2471 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Average Case Controller to Controller latency, 2689 ms and 2814 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively Worst Case Controller to Controller latency. The Average Case and Worst-Case latencies for Switch to Controller and Controller to Controller are minimal, and favourable to the POCO model as against the MOCO model when evaluated in the Goodnet, Savvis, and the Aanet networks. This simply indicates that the POCO model has a speed advantage as against the MOCO model, which appears to be more resilient than the POCO model.展开更多
文摘The evolution of the current network has challenges of programmability, maintainability and manageability, due to network ossification. This challenge led to the concept of software-defined networking (SDN), to decouple the control system from the infrastructure plane caused by ossification. The innovation created a problem with controller placement. That is how to effectively place controllers within a network topology to manage the network of data plane devices from the control plane. The study was designed to empirically evaluate and compare the functionalities of two controller placement algorithms: the POCO and MOCO. The methodology adopted in the study is the explorative and comparative investigation techniques. The study evaluated the performances of the Pareto optimal combination (POCO) and multi-objective combination (MOCO) algorithms in relation to calibrated positions of the controller within a software-defined network. The network environment and measurement metrics were held constant for both the POCO and MOCO models during the evaluation. The strengths and weaknesses of the POCO and MOCO models were justified. The results showed that the latencies of the two algorithms in relation to the GoodNet network are 3100 ms and 2500 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. In Switch to Controller Average Case latency, the performance gives 2598 ms and 2769 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. In Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, the performance shows 2776 ms and 2987 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively. The latencies of the two algorithms evaluated in relation to the Savvis network, compared as follows: 2912 ms and 2784 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Switch to Controller Average Case latency, 3129 ms and 3017 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, 2789 ms and 2693 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively in Average Case Controller to Controller latency, and 2873 ms and 2756 ms for POCO and MOCO in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency respectively. The latencies of the two algorithms evaluated in relation to the AARNet, network compared as follows: 2473 ms and 2129 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Switch to Controller Average Case latency, 2198 ms and 2268 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Worst Case Switch to Controller latency, 2598 ms and 2471 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively, in Average Case Controller to Controller latency, 2689 ms and 2814 ms for POCO and MOCO respectively Worst Case Controller to Controller latency. The Average Case and Worst-Case latencies for Switch to Controller and Controller to Controller are minimal, and favourable to the POCO model as against the MOCO model when evaluated in the Goodnet, Savvis, and the Aanet networks. This simply indicates that the POCO model has a speed advantage as against the MOCO model, which appears to be more resilient than the POCO model.
