SDN-OpenFlow Topology Discovery: An Overview of Performance Issues
Source abstract
Abstract
Software-defined networking (SDN) is an innovative architecture that separates the control plane from the data plane to simplify and speed up the management of large networks. This means the control logic has been moved from the network hardware level to the centralized control management level. Therefore, the use of the OpenFlow Discovery Protocol (OFDP) is one of the most common protocols used to discover the network topology in a data plane and then transmit it to the control plane for management. However, OFDP has various shortcomings in its performance such as exchanging too many messages between both levels (control and data), which in turn increases the load on the SDN-Controller. Additionally, since the application layer depends entirely on the network topologies plotted in the control plane, it is very important to obtain accurate network topology information from data plane. Therefore, after providing background on topology discovery protocols to the reader, we will concentrate on performance issues. The present study identifies and discuss the primary concerns involved in the complex query process, infrastructure, influencing factors, and challenges for the topology discovery process. Furthermore, this paper will present several recent studies that have overcome and enhanced these issues. In addition, open discussion and future work concerning these issues are also discussed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Software-Defined Networks and 5G · Caching and Content Delivery · Network Security and Intrusion Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Computing and Informatics, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh 11673, Saudi Arabia
The School of Information Technology, Sebha University, Sebha 71, Libya
Department of Computer System and Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. The road to SDN: An intellectual history of programmable networks10.1145/2602204.2602219 ↗
2. Kreutz, D., Ramos, F.M.V., and Verissimo, P. (2014, January 22). Towards secure and dependable software-defined networks. Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/2491185.2491199 ↗
3. A Survey on the Security of Stateful SDN Data Planes10.1109/COMST.2017.2689819 ↗
4. Software-defined networking10.1145/2500468.2500473 ↗
5. Are we ready for SDN? Implementation challenges for software-defined networks10.1109/MCOM.2013.6553676 ↗
6. Levin, D., Wundsam, A., Heller, B., Handigol, N., and Feldmann, A. (2012, January 13). Logically centralized?. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networks—HotSDN ’12, Helsinki, Finland.10.1145/2342441.2342443 ↗
7. (2021, June 08). ONF SDN Architecture ONF. Available online: https://www.opennetworking.org/sdn-definition.
8. Software-Defined Networking: Challenges and research opportunities for Future Internet10.1016/j.comnet.2014.10.015 ↗
9. Improving network management with software defined networking10.1109/MCOM.2013.6461195 ↗
10. Shirali-Shahreza, S., and Ganjali, Y. (2013, January 21–23). Efficient Implementation of Security Applications in OpenFlow Controller with FleXam. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 21st Annual Symposium on High-Performance Interconnects, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1109/HOTI.2013.17 ↗
11. Van Adrichem, N.L.M., Doerr, C., and Kuipers, F.A. (2014, January 5–9). OpenNetMon: Network monitoring in OpenFlow Software-Defined Networks. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), Krakow, Poland.10.1109/NOMS.2014.6838228 ↗
12. Lim, S., Ha, J., Kim, H., Kim, Y., and Yang, S. (2014, January 8–11). A SDN-oriented DDoS blocking scheme for botnet-based attacks. Proceedings of the 2014 Sixth International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN), Shanghai, China.10.1109/ICUFN.2014.6876752 ↗
13. A Survey on Software-Defined Networking10.1109/COMST.2014.2330903 ↗
14. A Survey and a Layered Taxonomy of Software-Defined Networking10.1109/COMST.2014.2320094 ↗
15. Software-Defined Networking: A Comprehensive Survey10.1109/JPROC.2014.2371999 ↗
16. Software defined networking: State of the art and research challenges10.1016/j.comnet.2014.07.004 ↗
17. Software-Defined Networking Using OpenFlow: Protocols, Applications and Architectural Design Choices10.3390/fi6020302 ↗
18. Network virtualization and software defined networking for cloud computing: A survey10.1109/MCOM.2013.6658648 ↗
19. (2021, June 08). OpenDaylight. Available online: https://www.opendaylight.org/.
20. (2021, June 08). Project Floodlight. Available online: https://floodlight.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/floodlightcontroller/pages/1343517/Supported+Topologies.
21. NOX10.1145/1384609.1384625 ↗
22. (2021, June 08). Ryu Controller. Available online: https://github.com/OpenState-SDN/ryu.
23. Wang, X., Gao, N., Zhang, L., Liu, Z., and Wang, L. (2016). Novel MITM Attacks on Security Protocols in SDN: A Feasibility Study. Proceedings of the 9th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 4–6 October 2010, USENIX Association.10.1007/978-3-319-50011-9_35 ↗
24. Erickson, D. (2013). The beacon openflow controller. HotSDN ‘13. Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking, Hong Kong, China, 16 August 2013, ACM Press.10.1145/2491185.2491189 ↗
25. Forwarding and Control. Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol Specification
26. Song, H. Protocol-oblivious forwarding: Unleash the power of SDN through a future-proof forwarding plane. HotSDN ‘13. Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking, Hong Kong, China, 16 August 2013, ACM Press.10.1145/2491185.2491190 ↗
27. OpenState10.1145/2602204.2602211 ↗
28. ONF (2012). OpenFlow Switch Specification version 1.3.0, ONF.
29. A survey on the architecture, application, and security of software defined networking: Challenges and open issues10.1016/j.iot.2020.100289 ↗
30. A Survey of Software-Defined Networking: Past, Present, and Future of Programmable Networks10.1109/SURV.2014.012214.00180 ↗
31. Security in SDN: A comprehensive survey10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102595 ↗
32. Lam, K.-Y., Chi, C.-H., and Qing, S. (2016). Novel MITM Attacks on Security Protocols in SDN: A Feasibility Study. Information and Communications Security, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference, ICICS 2016, Singapore, 29 November–2 December 2016, Springer International Publishing.
33. Topology Discovery in Software Defined Networks: Threats, Taxonomy, and State-of-the-Art10.1109/COMST.2016.2597193 ↗
34. Hong, S., Xu, L., Wang, H., and Gu, G. (2015, January 8–11). Poisoning Network Visibility in Software-Defined Networks: New Attacks and Countermeasures. Proceedings of the 2015 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA.10.14722/ndss.2015.23283 ↗
35. Dhawan, M., Poddar, R., Mahajan, K., and Mann, V. (2015, January 8–11). SPHINX: Detecting Security Attacks in Software-Defined Networks. Proceedings of the 2015 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, USA.10.14722/ndss.2015.23064 ↗
36. Breitbart, Y., Garofalakis, M., Martin, C., Rastogi, R., Seshadri, S., and Silberschatz, A. (2000, January 26–30). Topology discovery in heterogeneous IP networks. Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2000 Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (Cat. No.00CH37064), TelAviv, Israel.
37. Pakzad, F., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L., and Indulska, J. (2014, January 15–17). Efficient topology discovery in software defined networks. Proceedings of the 2014 8th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication Systems (ICSPCS), Queensland, Australia.10.1109/ICSPCS.2014.7021050 ↗
38. Azzouni, A., Boutaba, R., Trang, N.T.M., and Pujolle, G. (2018, January 23–27). sOFTDP: Secure and efficient OpenFlow topology discovery protocol. Proceedings of the NOMS 2018–2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1109/NOMS.2018.8406229 ↗
39. Efficient topology discovery in OpenFlow-based Software Defined Networks10.1016/j.comcom.2015.09.013 ↗
40. Martinez-Yelmo, I., Alvarez-Horcajo, J., Carral, J.A., and Lopez-Pajares, D. (2021). eHDDP: Enhanced Hybrid Domain Discovery Protocol for network topologies with both wired/wireless and SDN/non-SDN devices. Comput. Netw., 191.10.1016/j.comnet.2021.107983 ↗
41. Montero, R., Agraz, F., Pages, A., Perello, J., and Spadaro, S. (2017, January 15–18). Dynamic topology discovery in SDN-enabled Transparent Optical Networks. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling, Budapest, Hungary.10.23919/ONDM.2017.7958525 ↗
42. SLDP: A secure and lightweight link discovery protocol for software defined networking10.1016/j.comnet.2018.12.014 ↗
43. ESLD: An efficient and secure link discovery scheme for software-defined networking10.1002/dac.3552 ↗
44. LLMP: Exploiting LLDP for Latency Measurement in Software-Defined Data Center Networks10.1007/s11390-018-1819-2 ↗
45. TEDP: An Enhanced Topology Discovery Service for Software-Defined Networking10.1109/LCOMM.2018.2845372 ↗
46. Chen, C.C., Chen, Y.R., Tsai, S.C., and Yang, M.C. (2017, January 27–29). Forwarding path discovery with software defined networking. Proceedings of the 2017 19th Asia-Pacific Network Operations and Management Symposium (APNOMS), Seoul, Korea.10.1109/APNOMS.2017.8094133 ↗
47. Security Challenges and Opportunities of Software-Defined Networking10.1109/MSP.2017.46 ↗
48. Software Defined Networking Architecture, Security and Energy Efficiency: A Survey10.1109/COMST.2016.2618874 ↗
49. A Survey of Security in Software Defined Networks10.1109/COMST.2015.2453114 ↗
50. Shin, S., Xu, L., Hong, S., and Gu, G. (2016, January 1–4). Enhancing Network Security through Software Defined Networking (SDN). Proceedings of the 2016 25th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Waikoloa, HT, USA.10.1109/ICCCN.2016.7568520 ↗
51. Secure and dependable software defined networks10.1016/j.jnca.2015.11.012 ↗
52. A survey on OpenFlow-based Software Defined Networks: Security challenges and countermeasures10.1016/j.jnca.2016.04.011 ↗
53. Nehra, A., Tripathi, M., and Gaur, M.S. (, January 13–15). “Global view” in SDN. Proceedings of the the 10th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks—SIN ’17, Jaipur, India.
54. Decentralized SDN Control Plane for a Distributed Cloud-Edge Infrastructure: A Survey10.1109/COMST.2021.3050297 ↗
55. Scalable Architecture for SDN Traffic Classification10.1109/JSYST.2017.2690259 ↗
56. Toward Adaptive and Scalable OpenFlow-SDN Flow Control: A Survey10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932422 ↗
57. Isyaku, B., Mohd Zahid, M.S., Bte Kamat, M., Abu Bakar, K., and Ghaleb, F.A. (2020). Software Defined Networking Flow Table Management of OpenFlow Switches Performance and Security Challenges: A Survey. Futur. Internet, 12.10.3390/fi12090147 ↗
58. ONF (2015). OpenFlow Switch. Specification 1.5.1, ONF.
59. Narisetty, R., Dane, L., Malishevskiy, A., Gurkan, D., Bailey, S., Narayan, S., and Mysore, S. (2013, January 20–22). OpenFlow configuration protocol: Implementation for the of management plane. Proceedings of the 2013 Second GENI Research and Educational Experiment Workshop, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1109/GREE.2013.21 ↗
60. Chan, K.Y., Chen, C.H., Chen, Y.H., Tsai, Y.J., Lee, S.S.W., and Wu, C.S. (2018, January 17–19). Fast Failure Recovery for In-Band Controlled Multi-Controller OpenFlow Networks. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC), Jeju, Korea.10.1109/ICTC.2018.8539715 ↗
61. (2021, April 02). Tr-510, O.N.F. The Benefits of Multiple Flow Tables and TTPs. Available online: https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/TR_Multiple_Flow_Tables_%0Aand_TTPs.pdf.
62. Fancy, C., and Pushpalatha, M. (2017, January 7–8). Performance evaluation of SDN controllers POX and floodlight in mininet emulation environment. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS), Palladam, India.10.1109/ISS1.2017.8389262 ↗
63. (2021, June 08). Cisco Cisco Open SDN Controller. Available online: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/wireless/wireless-lan-controller/index.html.
64. (2021, June 06). Geni GENI Wiki. Available online: http://groups.geni.net/geni/wiki/OpenFlowDiscoveryProtocol.
65. SDN orchestration architectures and their integration with Cloud Computing applications10.1016/j.osn.2015.09.007 ↗
66. ETDP: Enhanced topology discovery protocol for software-defined networks10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899653 ↗
67. Araniti, G., Cosmas, J., Iera, A., Molinaro, A., Morabito, R., and Orsino, A. (2014). OpenFlow over wireless networks: Performance analysis. IEEE Int. Symp. Broadband Multimed. Syst. Broadcast. BMSB.10.1109/BMSB.2014.6873559 ↗
68. On the Impact of Network State Collection on the Performance of SDN Applications10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2496955 ↗
69. Kempf, J., Bellagamba, E., Kern, A., Jocha, D., Takacs, A., and Skoldstrom, P. (2012, January 10–15). Scalable fault management for OpenFlow. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Ottawa, ON, Canada.10.1109/ICC.2012.6364688 ↗
70. Abdelhadi, A., Boutaba, R., and Pujolle, G. (2017, January 28–30). Limitations of OpenFlow Topology Discovery Protocol. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop (Med-hoc-Net 2017), Budva, Montenegro.
71. Tbah, M., Azzouni, A., Nguyen, M.T., and Pujolle, G. (2019, January 19–21). Topology Discovery Performance Evaluation of OpenDaylight and ONOS Controllers. Proceedings of the 2019 22nd Conference on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops (ICIN), Paris, France.10.1109/ICIN.2019.8685915 ↗
72. Performance issues and solutions in SDN-based data center: A survey10.1007/s11227-020-03180-7 ↗
73. Performance analysis of SDN/openflow controllers: POX versus floodlight10.1007/s11277-017-4939-z ↗
74. Performance Evaluation of Openflow SDN Controllers10.1007/978-3-319-76348-4_87 ↗
75. A Comparison of Data Forwarding Schemes for Network Resiliency in Software Defined Networking10.1016/j.procs.2014.07.097 ↗
76. Tarnaras, G., Haleplidis, E., and Denazis, S. (2015, January 13–17). SDN and ForCES based optimal network topology discovery. Proceedings of the 2015 1st IEEE Conference on Network Softwarization (NetSoft), London, UK.10.1109/NETSOFT.2015.7116181 ↗
77. Rajaratnam, A., Kadikar, R., Prince, S., and Valarmathi, M. (2017, January 22–24). Software defined networks: Comparative analysis of topologies with ONOS. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking, Chennai, India.10.1109/WiSPNET.2017.8299989 ↗
78. Bah, M.T., Del-Piccolo, V., Bourguiba, M., and Haddadou, K. (2016, January 19–21). A centralized controller to improve fault tolerance in TRILL-based fabric networks. Proceedings of the 2016 3rd Smart Cloud Networks & Systems (SCNS), Dubai, United Arab Emirates.10.1109/SCNS.2016.7870564 ↗
79. Alharbi, T., Portmann, M., and Pakzad, F. (2015, January 26–29). The (In)Security of Topology Discovery in Software Defined Networks. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 40th Conference on Local Computer Networks, Clearwater Beach, FL, USA.10.1109/LCN.2015.7366363 ↗
80. Nguyen, T.-H., and Myungsik, Y. (2017, January 11–13). Analysis of link discovery service attacks in SDN controller. Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN), Da Nang, Vietnam.
81. Smyth, D., McSweeney, S., O’Shea, D., and Cionca, V. (August, January 31). Detecting Link Fabrication Attacks in Software-Defined Networks. Proceedings of the 2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/ICCCN.2017.8038435 ↗
82. Dynamic resource discovery protocol for software defined networks10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2403322 ↗
83. Design and evaluation of a PCEP-based topology discovery protocol for stateful PCE10.1016/j.osn.2015.09.006 ↗
84. SDN-based parallel link discovery in optical transport networks
85. HDDP: Hybrid Domain Discovery Protocol for Heterogeneous Devices in SDN10.1109/LCOMM.2020.2991347 ↗
86. Zhao, R., Liu, Y., Dobre, O.A., Wang, H., and Shen, X. (2020). An efficient topology discovery protocol with node id assignment based on layered model for underwater acoustic networks. Sensors, 20.10.3390/s20226601 ↗
87. Efficient topology discovery algorithm for software-defined networks10.1049/iet-net.2017.0066 ↗
88. Katz, D., and Ward, D. RFC 5880, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (June 2010).10.17487/rfc5880 ↗
89. Minnie: An SDN world with few compressed forwarding rules10.1016/j.comnet.2017.04.026 ↗
90. Panda, A., Samal, S.S., Turuk, A.K., Panda, A., and Venkatesh, V.C. (2019, January 30–31). Dynamic Hard Timeout based Flow Table Management in Openflow enabled SDN. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Vision Towards Emerging Trends in Communication and Networking, Vellore, India.10.1109/ViTECoN.2019.8899359 ↗
91. Isyaku, B., Kamat, M.B., Abu Bakar, K.B., Mohd Zahid, M.S., and Ghaleb, F.A. (2020, January 18–19). IHTA: Dynamic Idle-Hard Timeout Allocation Algorithm based OpenFlow Switch. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 10th Symposium on Computer Applications & Industrial Electronics, Penang, Malaysia.10.1109/ISCAIE47305.2020.9108803 ↗
92. Xu, X., Hu, L., Lin, H., and Fan, Z. (2019, January 10–12). An adaptive flow table adjustment algorithm for SDN. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 21st International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 17th International Conference on Smart City, Zhangjiajie, China.10.1109/HPCC/SmartCity/DSS.2019.00244 ↗
93. A Packet-In message filtering mechanism for protection of control plane in OpenFlow switches10.1587/transinf.2015EDP7256 ↗
94. Favaro, A., and Ribeiro, E.P. (2020, January 28–30). Reducing SDN/openflow control plane overhead with blackhole mechanism. Proceedings of the 2015 Global Information Infrastructure and Networking Symposium (GIIS), Tunis, Tunisia.10.1109/GIIS.2015.7347173 ↗
95. FTRS: A mechanism for reducing flow table entries in software defined networks10.1016/j.comnet.2017.04.022 ↗
96. HQTimer: A Hybrid Q-Learning-Based Timeout Mechanism in Software-Defined Networks10.1109/TNSM.2018.2890754 ↗
97. Yang, H., and Riley, G.F. (August, January 30). Machine learning based flow entry eviction for OpenFlow switches. Proceedings of the 2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), Hangzhou, China.10.1109/ICCCN.2018.8487362 ↗
98. Alowa, A., and Fevens, T. (July, January 29). A dynamic recovery module for in-band control channel failure in software defined networking. Proceedings of the 2020 6th IEEE Conference on Network Softwarization, Ghent, Belgium.10.1109/NetSoft48620.2020.9165380 ↗
99. Centralized Trust-Based In-Band Control for SDN Control Channel10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963475 ↗
100. Asadujjaman, A.S.M., Rojas, E., Alam, M.S., and Majumdar, S. (2018, January 25–29). Fast Control Channel Recovery for Resilient In-band OpenFlow Networks. Proceedings of the 2018 4th IEEE Conference on Network Softwarization and Workshops, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1109/NETSOFT.2018.8460079 ↗