Will SDN be part of 5G?

For many, this is no longer a valid question and the case is considered settled with SDN/NFV (Software Defined Networking/Network Function Virtualization) providing the inevitable innovation enablers solving many outstanding management issues regarding 5G. However, given the monumental task of softwarization of radio access network (RAN) while 5G is just around the corner and some companies have started unveiling their 5G equipment already, the concern is very realistic that we may only see some point solutions involving SDN technology instead of a fully SDN-enabled RAN. This survey paper identifies all important obstacles in the way and looks at the state of the art of the relevant solutions. This survey is different from the previous surveys on SDN-based RAN as it focuses on the salient problems and discusses solutions proposed within and outside SDN literature. Our main focus is on fronthaul, backward compatibility, supposedly disruptive nature of SDN deployment, business cases and monetization of SDN related upgrades, latency of general purpose processors (GPP), and additional security vulnerabilities, softwarization brings along to the RAN. We have also provided a summary of the architectural developments in SDN-based RAN landscape as not all work can be covered under the focused issues. This paper provides a comprehensive survey on the state of the art of SDN-based RAN and clearly points out the gaps in the technology.Comment: 33 pages, 10 figure

Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Dawadi, BR, Rawat, DB, Joshi, SR, Manzoni, P, Keitsch, MM. Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network. Int J Network Mgmt. 2021; 31:e2145, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.2145. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.[EN] This paper studies a problem for seamless migration of legacy networks of Internet service providers to a software-defined networking (SDN)-based architecture along with the transition to the full adoption of the Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6) connectivity. Migration of currently running legacy IPv4 networks into such new approaches requires either upgrades or replacement of existing networking devices and technologies that are actively operating. The joint migration to SDN and IPv6 network is considered to be vital in terms of migration cost optimization, skilled human resource management, and other critical factors. In this work, we first present the approaches of SDN and IPv6 migration in service providers' networks. Then, we present the common concerns of IPv6 and SDN migration with joint transition strategies so that the cost associated with joint migration is minimized to lower than that of the individual migration. For the incremental adoption of software-defined IPv6 (SoDIP6) network with optimum migration cost, a greedy algorithm is proposed based on optimal path and the customer priority. Simulation and empirical analysis show that a unified transition planning to SoDIP6 network results in lower migration cost.U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), Grant/Award Number: CNS 1650831 and HRD 1828811; ERASMUS+ KA107; Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (NAST); Norwegian University of Science and Technology; University Grant Commission (UGC), Nepal, Grant/Award Number: FRG/74_75/Engg-1Dawadi, BR.; Rawat, DB.; Joshi, SR.; Manzoni, P.; Keitsch, MM. (2021). Migration cost optimization for service provider legacy network migration to software-defined IPv6 network. International Journal of Network Management. 31(4):1-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/nem.2145S124314APNIC.IPv6 capability measurement.https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6. Accessed April 22 2020.Google Incl. IPv6 user access status.https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html. Accessed February 16 2020.Rawat, D. B., & Reddy, S. R. (2017). Software Defined Networking Architecture, Security and Energy Efficiency: A Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 19(1), 325-346. doi:10.1109/comst.2016.2618874Dai, B., Xu, G., Huang, B., Qin, P., & Xu, Y. (2017). Enabling network innovation in data center networks with software defined networking: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 94, 33-49. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.07.004Kobayashi, M., Seetharaman, S., Parulkar, G., Appenzeller, G., Little, J., van Reijendam, J., … McKeown, N. (2014). Maturing of OpenFlow and Software-defined Networking through deployments. Computer Networks, 61, 151-175. doi:10.1016/j.bjp.2013.10.011Gumaste, A., Sharma, V., Kakadia, D., Yates, J., Clauberg, A., & Voltolini, M. (2017). SDN Use Cases for Service Provider Networks: Part 2. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(4), 62-63. doi:10.1109/mcom.2017.7901478Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Software Defined IPv6 Network: A New Paradigm for Future Networking. Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 15(2), 1-13. doi:10.3126/jie.v15i2.27636Shah, J. L., Bhat, H. F., & Khan, A. I. (2019). Towards IPv6 Migration and Challenges. International Journal of Technology Diffusion, 10(2), 83-96. doi:10.4018/ijtd.2019040105Rojas, E., Doriguzzi-Corin, R., Tamurejo, S., Beato, A., Schwabe, A., Phemius, K., & Guerrero, C. (2018). Are We Ready to Drive Software-Defined Networks? A Comprehensive Survey on Management Tools and Techniques. ACM Computing Surveys, 51(2), 1-35. doi:10.1145/3165290Contreras, L. M., Doolan, P., Lønsethagen, H., & López, D. R. (2015). Operational, organizational and business challenges for network operators in the context of SDN and NFV. Computer Networks, 92, 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.016Amin, R., Reisslein, M., & Shah, N. (2018). Hybrid SDN Networks: A Survey of Existing Approaches. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 20(4), 3259-3306. doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2837161Audi Marc Amjad A.The Advancement in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Economic Development: A Panel Analysis. MPRA.https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/93476/. Published 2019. Accessed November 29 2019.Main, A., Zakaria, N. A., & Yusof, R. (2015). Organisation Readiness Factors Towards IPv6 Migration: Expert Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1882-1889. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.427Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Baral, D. S. (2019). Affordable Broadband with Software Defined IPv6 Network for Developing Rural Communities. Applied System Innovation, 3(1), 4. doi:10.3390/asi3010004Nikkhah, M. (2016). Maintaining the progress of IPv6 adoption. Computer Networks, 102, 50-69. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2016.02.027Dell, P. (2018). On the dual-stacking transition to IPv6: A forlorn hope? Telecommunications Policy, 42(7), 575-581. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2018.04.005GilliganRE NordmarkE GilliganRE et alBasic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers.2000.Cui, Y., Dong, J., Wu, P., Wu, J., Metz, C., Lee, Y. L., & Durand, A. (2013). Tunnel-Based IPv6 Transition. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 62-68. doi:10.1109/mic.2012.63BlanchetM ParentF.IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP).2010.HuitemaC.Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs) RFC 4380.2006.CarpenterB MooreK.Connection of IPv6 domains via IPv4 clouds.2001.JungC CarpenterBE.Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels.1999.CuiY WuJ LeeY WuP VautrinO.Public IPv4‐over‐IPv6 access Network2013.CuiY SunQ LeeYL TsouT FarrerI BoucadairM.Lightweight 4over6: an extension to the dual‐stack lite Architecture2015.TemplinF GleesonT TalwarM ThalerD.Intra‐Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) RFC 5214.2008.DurandA DromsR WoodyattJ LeeY.RFC 6333: Dual‐Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion. IETF Aug.2011.BaoC DecW LiX TroanO MatsushimaS MurakamiT.Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP‐E). IETF Internet Draft.2015.TownsleyW TroanO.IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)‐‐Protocol Specification.2010.ChenM ChenG JiangS LeeY DespresR PennoR.IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6‐A Stateless Solution (4rd).2015.WuP CuiY XuM et alPET: Prefixing encapsulation and translation for IPv4‐IPv6 coexistence. In: 2010IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM2010. 2010:1–5.LiX BaoC ChenM ZhangH WuJ.IVI translation design and deployment for the IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and transition.IETF RFC6219 Internet Eng Task Force Fremont CA.2011.Bagnulo, M., Garcia-Martinez, A., & Van Beijnum, I. (2012). The NAT64/DNS64 tool suite for IPv6 transition. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(7), 177-183. doi:10.1109/mcom.2012.6231295BagnuloM SullivanA MatthewsP VanBeijnumI.DNS64: DNS extensions for network address translation from IPv6 clients to IPv4 servers RFC 6147.2011.LiuD DengH.NAT46 Considerations.2010.MawatariM KawashimaM ByrneC.464XLAT: Combination of stateful and stateless translation. IETF Internet‐Draft.2013.PerreaultS YamagataI MiyakawaS NakagawaA.Common Requirements for Carrier‐Grade NATs (CGNs) RFC6888.2013.YamaguchiJ ShirasakiY NakagawaA AshidaH.Nat444 addressing models. Req Comments Draft Internet Eng Task Force.2012.ChenG CaoZ XieC BinetD.NAT64 Deployment Options and Experience RFC 7269.2014.LiX BaoC DecW TroanO MatsushimaS MurakamiT.Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP‐T) RFC 7599. IETF Internet Draft.2013.Wu, P., Cui, Y., Wu, J., Liu, J., & Metz, C. (2013). Transition from IPv4 to IPv6: A State-of-the-Art Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 15(3), 1407-1424. doi:10.1109/surv.2012.110112.00200Hernandez-Valencia, E., Izzo, S., & Polonsky, B. (2015). How will NFV/SDN transform service provider opex? IEEE Network, 29(3), 60-67. doi:10.1109/mnet.2015.7113227BogineniK et alThe Open Networking Lab (ON.Lab). Introducing ONOS—a SDN network operating system for Service Providers.White Pap.2014;1:14.http://onosproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Whitepaper-ONOS-final.pdfTR‐506 O ONF TR‐506.SDN Migration Considerations and Use Cases.2014.https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sb-sdn-migration-use-cases.pdfRisdiantoAC LingTC TsaiP YangC KimJ.Leveraging open‐source software for federated multisite SDN‐cloud playground. In: 2016 IEEE NetSoft Conference and Workshops (NetSoft). ;2016:423‐427.https://doi.org/10.1109/NETSOFT.2016.7502479GalizaH SchwarzM BezerraJ IbarraJ.Moving an ip network to sdn: a global use case deployment experience at amlight. In:Anais Do WPEIF2016Workshop de Pesquisa Experimental Da Internet Do Futuro: 15.LevinD CaniniM SchmidS SchaffertF Feldmann A.Panopticon: Reaping the Benefits of Incremental {SDN} Deployment in Enterprise Networks. In: 2014 {USENIX} Annual Technical Conference ({USENIX}{ATC} 14). ;2014:333–345.Vissicchio, S., Tilmans, O., Vanbever, L., & Rexford, J. (2015). Central Control Over Distributed Routing. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 45(4), 43-56. doi:10.1145/2829988.2787497Huang, X., Cheng, S., Cao, K., Cong, P., Wei, T., & Hu, S. (2019). A Survey of Deployment Solutions and Optimization Strategies for Hybrid SDN Networks. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 21(2), 1483-1507. doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2871061Csikor, L., Szalay, M., Retvari, G., Pongracz, G., Pezaros, D. P., & Toka, L. (2020). Transition to SDN is HARMLESS: Hybrid Architecture for Migrating Legacy Ethernet Switches to SDN. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 28(1), 275-288. doi:10.1109/tnet.2019.2958762Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Manzoni, P. (2020). Legacy Network Integration with SDN-IP Implementation towards a Multi-Domain SoDIP6 Network Environment. Electronics, 9(9), 1454. doi:10.3390/electronics9091454HongDK MaY BanerjeeS MaoZM.Incremental deployment of SDN in hybrid enterprise and ISP networks. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research. 2016:1‐7.Karakus, M., & Durresi, A. (2018). Economic Viability of Software Defined Networking (SDN). Computer Networks, 135, 81-95. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.02.015Rizvi, S. N., Raumer, D., Wohlfart, F., & Carle, G. (2015). Towards carrier grade SDNs. Computer Networks, 92, 218-226. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.029Sezer, S., Scott-Hayward, S., Chouhan, P., Fraser, B., Lake, D., Finnegan, J., … Rao, N. (2013). Are we ready for SDN? Implementation challenges for software-defined networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(7), 36-43. doi:10.1109/mcom.2013.6553676Raza, M. H., Sivakumar, S. C., Nafarieh, A., & Robertson, B. (2014). A Comparison of Software Defined Network (SDN) Implementation Strategies. Procedia Computer Science, 32, 1050-1055. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.532Goransson, P., & Black, C. (2014). SDN in the Data Center. Software Defined Networks, 145-167. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416675-2.00007-3AT & T.Introducing the “User Defined Network Cloud”.https://about.att.com/newsroom/introducing_the_user_defined_network_cloud.html. Published 2014. Accessed August 12 2018.CsikorL TokaL SzalayM PongráczG PezarosDP RétváriG.HARMLESS: Cost‐effective transitioning to SDN for small enterprises. In: 2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops. ; 2018:1–9.ON.LAB.Driving SDN Adoption in Service Provider Networks.2014.http://onosproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Whitepaper-Service-Provider-SDN-final.pdfBabikerH NikolovaI ChittimaneniKKK.Deploying IPv6 in the Google Enterprise Network. Lessons learned. In:LISA'11 Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Large Installation System Administration 2011:10.ParkHW HwangISLS LeeJR.Study on the sustainable migration to software defined network for nation‐wide R&E network.Proc—201610th Int Conf Innov Mob Internet Serv Ubiquitous Comput IMIS2016.2016:392‐396.https://doi.org/10.1109/IMIS.2016.117CariaM JukanA HoffmannM.A performance study of network migration to SDN‐enabled traffic engineering. In:2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM); 2013:1391‐1396.Sandhya, Sinha, Y., & Haribabu, K. (2017). A survey: Hybrid SDN. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 100, 35-55. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.003LENCSE, G., & KADOBAYASHI, Y. (2019). Comprehensive Survey of IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification for Security Analysis. IEICE Transactions on Communications, E102.B(10), 2021-2035. doi:10.1587/transcom.2018ebr0002NIST.Technical and Economic Assessment of Internet Protocol Verson 6 9IPv6.2006.https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=912231NIST.IPv6 Economic Impact Assessment. NY;2005.https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/director/planning/report05-2.pdfDasT CariaM JukanA HoffmannM.A Techno‐economic Analysis of Network Migration to Software‐Defined Networking.2013.http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0216Das, T., Drogon, M., Jukan, A., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Study of Network Migration to New Technologies Using Agent-Based Modeling Techniques. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 23(4), 920-949. doi:10.1007/s10922-014-9327-3Yuan, T., Huang, X., Ma, M., & Zhang, P. (2017). Migration to software-defined networks: The customers’ view. China Communications, 14(10), 1-11. doi:10.1109/cc.2017.8107628TürkS LiuY RadekeR LehnertR.Network migration optimization using genetic algorithms. In: Meeting of the European Network of Universities and Companies in Information and Communication Engineering. 2012:112–123.Türk, S. (2014). Network migration optimization using meta-heuristics. AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications, 68(7), 584-586. doi:10.1016/j.aeue.2014.04.005TürkS RadekeR LehnertR.Network migration using ant colony optimization. In:2010 9th Conference of Telecommunication Media and Internet; 2010:1–6.TurkS LiuH RadekeR LehnertR.Improving network migration optimization utilizing memetic algorithms. In: Global Information Infrastructure Symposium—GIIS 2013. 2013:1‐8.https://doi.org/10.1109/GIIS.2013.6684345ShayaniD Mas MachucaC JagerM GladischA.Cost analysis of the service migration problem between communication platforms. In: NOMS 2008–2008 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium. 2008:734‐737.https://doi.org/10.1109/NOMS.2008.4575201Shayani, D., Mas Machuca, C., & Jager, M. (2010). A techno-economic approach to telecommunications: the case of service migration. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 7(2), 96-106. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2010.06.i8p0297Naudts, B., Kind, M., Verbrugge, S., Colle, D., & Pickavet, M. (2015). How can a mobile service provider reduce costs with software-defined networking? International Journal of Network Management, 26(1), 56-72. doi:10.1002/nem.1919Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Evolutionary Dynamics of Service Provider Legacy Network Migration to Software Defined IPv6 Network. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 245-257. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19861-9_24BezrukVM ChebotarovaD V KaliuzhniyNM QiangG YuZ.Optimization and mathematical modeling of communication networks.Monogr—Open Electron Arch Kharkov Natl Univ Radio Electron.2019.http://openarchive.nure.ua/handle/document/10121Omantek. Open‐AudIT: Device Information Management System.https://www.open-audit.org/about.phpNet. Inventory Advisor.Network Inventory Software.https://www.network-inventory-advisor.com/. Accessed December 3 2019.OCS‐Inventory. OCSING: Open Inventory Next Generation.https://ocsinventory-ng.org/?lang=en. Accessed December 3 2019.Group MW. Migration Use Cases and Methods Migration Working Group Open Networking Foundation Use Cases and Migration Methods 2.www.opennetworking.orgSohn, S. Y., & Kim, Y. (2011). Economic Evaluation Model for International Standardization of Correlated Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(2), 189-198. doi:10.1109/tem.2010.2058853ONF TS‐006.OpenFlow 1.3 Switch Specification.2012.https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/openflow-spec-v1.3.0.pdfMahlooM MontiP ChenJ WosinskaL.Cost modeling of backhaul for mobile networks. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC). 2014:397–402.https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCW.2014.6881230DawadiBR RawatDB JoshiSR KeitschMM.Joint cost estimation approach for service provider legacy network migration to unified software defined IPv6 network. In: Proceedings—4th IEEE International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing CIC 2018.2018.https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC.2018.00056FengT BiJ.OpenRouteFlow: Enable legacy router as a software‐defined routing service for hybrid SDN. In: 2015 24th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN).2015:1–8.MachucaCM EberspaecherJ JägerM GladischA.Service migration cost modeling. In: 2007 ITG Symposium on Photonic Networks. ; 2007:1–5.Poularakis, K., Iosifidis, G., Smaragdakis, G., & Tassiulas, L. (2019). Optimizing Gradual SDN Upgrades in ISP Networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 27(1), 288-301. doi:10.1109/tnet.2018.2890248Galán-Jiménez, J. (2017). Legacy IP-upgraded SDN nodes tradeoff in energy-efficient hybrid IP/SDN networks. Computer Communications, 114, 106-123. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2017.10.010Vizarreta, P., Trivedi, K., Helvik, B., Heegaard, P., Blenk, A., Kellerer, W., & Mas Machuca, C. (2018). Assessing the Maturity of SDN Controllers With Software Reliability Growth Models. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 15(3), 1090-1104. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2018.2848105Salsano, S., Ventre, P. L., Lombardo, F., Siracusano, G., Gerola, M., Salvadori, E., … Prete, L. (2016). Hybrid IP/SDN Networking: Open Implementation and Experiment Management Tools. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 13(1), 138-153. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2015.2507622DasT GurusamyM.Resilient Controller Placement in Hybrid SDN/Legacy Networks. In: 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). 2018:1–7.DasT GurusamyM.INCEPT: INcremental ControllEr PlacemenT in software defined networks. In: 2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN). 2018:1–6

Legacy Network Integration with SDN-IP Implementation towards a Multi-Domain SoDIP6 Network Environment

[EN] The logical separation of the data plane and the control plane of the network device conceptually defined by software-defined networking (SDN) creates many opportunities to create smart networking with better efficiency for network management and operation. SDN implementation over telecommunications (Telcos) and Internet service provider (ISP) networks is a challenging issue due to the lack of a high maturity level of SDN-based standards and several other critical factors that are considered during the real-time migration of existing legacy IPv4 networks. Different migration approaches have been studied; however, none of them seem to be close to realizing implementation. This paper implements the SDN-IP and Open Network Operating System (ONOS) SDN controller to migrate legacy IPv4 networks to multi-domain software-defined IPv6 (SoDIP6) networks and experimentally evaluate the viability of joint network migration in the ISP networks. We present results using extensive simulations for the suitable placement of the master ONOS controller during network migration by considering minimum control path latency using optimal path routing and the breadth first router replacement (BFR) technique. Our empirical analysis and evaluations show that the identification of the median router to attach the master controller and router migration planning using BFR give better results for carrier-grade legacy networks' migration to SoDIP6 networks.This research was partially funded by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondhiem, Norway (NTNU) under Sustainable Engineering Education Project (SEEP) financed by EnPE, University Grant Commission (grant-ID: FRG7475Engg01), Bhaktapur, Nepal, Nepal academy of Science and Technology (NAST), Kathmandu, Nepal, and U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). The work of Danda B. Rawat was partly supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) under grants CNS 1650831 and HRD 1828811. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the NSF. We are thankful to the ERASMUS+ KA107 project and the GRC lab team members at Universitat Politècnica De València for the research support and facilitation.Dawadi, BR.; Rawat, DB.; Joshi, SR.; Manzoni, P. (2020). Legacy Network Integration with SDN-IP Implementation towards a Multi-Domain SoDIP6 Network Environment. Electronics. 9(9):1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9091454S12299Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Software Defined IPv6 Network: A New Paradigm for Future Networking. Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 15(2), 1-13. doi:10.3126/jie.v15i2.27636Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Manzoni, P. (2020). Evolutionary gaming approach for decision making of Tier‐3 Internet service provider networks migration to SoDIP6 networks. International Journal of Communication Systems, 33(11). doi:10.1002/dac.4399Gu, D., Su, J., Xue, Y., Wang, D., Li, J., Luo, Z., & Yan, B. (2020). Modeling IPv6 adoption from biological evolution. Computer Communications, 158, 166-177. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.081IPv6 Capability Measurement https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., Joshi, S. R., & Keitsch, M. M. (2018). Joint Cost Estimation Approach for Service Provider Legacy Network Migration to Unified Software Defined IPv6 Network. 2018 IEEE 4th International Conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC). doi:10.1109/cic.2018.00056Csikor, L., Szalay, M., Retvari, G., Pongracz, G., Pezaros, D. P., & Toka, L. (2020). Transition to SDN is HARMLESS: Hybrid Architecture for Migrating Legacy Ethernet Switches to SDN. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 28(1), 275-288. doi:10.1109/tnet.2019.2958762Sandhya, Sinha, Y., & Haribabu, K. (2017). A survey: Hybrid SDN. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 100, 35-55. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.10.003Mostafaei, H., Lospoto, G., Di Lallo, R., Rimondini, M., & Di Battista, G. (2020). A framework for multi‐provider virtual private networks in software‐defined federated networks. International Journal of Network Management, 30(6). doi:10.1002/nem.2116Dawadi, B. R., Rawat, D. B., & Joshi, S. R. (2019). Evolutionary Dynamics of Service Provider Legacy Network Migration to Software Defined IPv6 Network. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 245-257. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-19861-9_24Salsano, S., Ventre, P. L., Lombardo, F., Siracusano, G., Gerola, M., Salvadori, E., … Prete, L. (2016). Hybrid IP/SDN Networking: Open Implementation and Experiment Management Tools. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 13(1), 138-153. doi:10.1109/tnsm.2015.2507622Vissicchio, S., Tilmans, O., Vanbever, L., & Rexford, J. (2015). Central Control Over Distributed Routing. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Special Interest Group on Data Communication. doi:10.1145/2785956.2787497Rizvi, S. N., Raumer, D., Wohlfart, F., & Carle, G. (2015). Towards carrier grade SDNs. Computer Networks, 92, 218-226. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.09.029Risdianto, A. C., Tsai, P.-W., Ling, T. C., Yang, C.-S., & Kim, J. (2017). Enhanced Onos Sdn Controllers Deployment For Federated Multi-Domain Sdn-Cloud With Sd-Routing-Exchange. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 30(2), 134-153. doi:10.22452/mjcs.vol30no2.5Ventre, P. L., Salsano, S., Gerola, M., Salvadori, E., Usman, M., Buscaglione, S., … Snow, W. (2017). SDN-Based IP and Layer 2 Services with an Open Networking Operating System in the GÉANT Service Provider Network. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(4), 71-79. doi:10.1109/mcom.2017.1600194SDN-IP Arhitecture https://wiki.onosproject.org/display/ONOS/SDN-IP+ArchitectureLee, H.-L., Liu, T.-L., & Chen, M. (2019). Deploying SDN-IP over Transnational Network Testbed. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics - Taiwan (ICCE-TW). doi:10.1109/icce-tw46550.2019.8991776Das, T., Sridharan, V., & Gurusamy, M. (2020). A Survey on Controller Placement in SDN. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(1), 472-503. doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2935453Chen, W., Chen, C., Jiang, X., & Liu, L. (2018). Multi-Controller Placement Towards SDN Based on Louvain Heuristic Algorithm. IEEE Access, 6, 49486-49497. doi:10.1109/access.2018.2867931Qi, Y., Wang, D., Yao, W., Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2019). Towards Multi-Controller Placement for SDN Based on Density Peaks Clustering. ICC 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). doi:10.1109/icc.2019.8761814Lu, J., Zhang, Z., Hu, T., Yi, P., & Lan, J. (2019). A Survey of Controller Placement Problem in Software-Defined Networking. IEEE Access, 7, 24290-24307. doi:10.1109/access.2019.2893283Singh, A. K., Maurya, S., Kumar, N., & Srivastava, S. (2019). Heuristic approaches for the reliable SDN controller placement problem. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 31(2). doi:10.1002/ett.3761Das, T., & Gurusamy, M. (2018). Resilient Controller Placement in Hybrid SDN/Legacy Networks. 2018 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM). doi:10.1109/glocom.2018.8647566Heller, B., Sherwood, R., & McKeown, N. (2012). The controller placement problem. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 42(4), 473-478. doi:10.1145/2377677.2377767SDN Control Plane Performance: Raising the Bar on SDN Performance, Scalability, and High Availability https://wiki.onosproject.org/download/attachments/13994369/Whitepaper-%20ONOS%20Kingfisher%20release%20performance.pdf?version=

Multi-Stage Network Upgrade for Green Software Defined Networking

This thesis addresses three versions of a novel problem, called Green Multi-Stage Upgrade (GMSU), to upgrade legacy networks to Software Defined Networks (SDNs). The three versions, namely GMSU-1, GMSU-2, and GMSU-3, consider legacy networks that support IEEE 802.1AX, where each link contains multiple cables. Each version aims to replace a set of legacy-switches with SDN-switches over multiple stages. The aim is to maximally turn off unused cables adjacent to SDN-switches to save energy

Hybrid SDN Evolution: A Comprehensive Survey of the State-of-the-Art

Software-Defined Networking (SDN) is an evolutionary networking paradigm which has been adopted by large network and cloud providers, among which are Tech Giants. However, embracing a new and futuristic paradigm as an alternative to well-established and mature legacy networking paradigm requires a lot of time along with considerable financial resources and technical expertise. Consequently, many enterprises can not afford it. A compromise solution then is a hybrid networking environment (a.k.a. Hybrid SDN (hSDN)) in which SDN functionalities are leveraged while existing traditional network infrastructures are acknowledged. Recently, hSDN has been seen as a viable networking solution for a diverse range of businesses and organizations. Accordingly, the body of literature on hSDN research has improved remarkably. On this account, we present this paper as a comprehensive state-of-the-art survey which expands upon hSDN from many different perspectives

Optimizing Gradual SDN Upgrades in ISP Networks

Nowadays, there is a fast-paced shift from legacy telecommunication systems to novel software-defined network (SDN) architectures that can support on-the-fly network reconfiguration, therefore, empowering advanced traffic engineering mechanisms. Despite this momentum, migration to SDN cannot be realized at once especially in high-end networks of Internet service providers (ISPs). It is expected that ISPs will gradually upgrade their networks to SDN over a period that spans several years. In this paper, we study the SDN upgrading problem in an ISP network: which nodes to upgrade and when we consider a general model that captures different migration costs and network topologies, and two plausible ISP objectives: 1) the maximization of the traffic that traverses at least one SDN node, and 2) the maximization of the number of dynamically selectable routing paths enabled by SDN nodes. We leverage the theory of submodular and supermodular functions to devise algorithms with provable approximation ratios for each objective. Using real-world network topologies and traffic matrices, we evaluate the performance of our algorithms and show up to 54% gains over state-of-the-art methods. Moreover, we describe the interplay between the two objectives; maximizing one may cause a factor of 2 loss to the other. We also study the dual upgrading problem, i.e., minimizing the upgrading cost for the ISP while ensuring specific performance goals. Our analysis shows that our proposed algorithm can achieve up to 2.5 times lower cost to ensure performance goals over state-of-the-art methods.EC/H2020/679158/EU/Resolving the Tussle in the Internet: Mapping, Architecture, and Policy Making/ResolutioNe

Joint energy efficiency and load balancing optimization in hybrid IP/SDN networks

Software-defined networking (SDN) is a paradigm that provides flexibility and programmability to computer networks. By introducing SDN nodes in a legacy IP network topology, network operators can benefit on higher control over the infrastructure. However, this migration is not a fast or straightforward process. Furthermore, to provide an adequate quality of service in hybrid IP/SDN networks, the coordination of both IP and SDN paradigm is fundamental. In this paper, this coordination is used to solve two optimization problems that are typically solved separately: (i) traffic load balancing and (ii) power consumption minimization. Each of these problems has opposing objectives, and thus, their joint consideration implies striking a balance between them. Therefore, this paper proposes the Hybrid Spreading Load Algorithm (HSLA) heuristic that jointly faces the problems of balancing traffic by minimizing link utilization and network's power consumption in a hybrid IP/SDN network. HSLA is evaluated over differently sized topologies using different methods to select which nodes are migrated from IP to SDN. These evaluations reveal that alternative approaches that only address one of the objectives are outperformed by HSLA