NetO-App: A Network Orchestration Application for Centralized Network Management in Small Business Networks

Software-defined networking (SDN) is reshaping the networking paradigm. Previous research shows that SDN has advantages over traditional networks because it separates the control and data plane, leading to greater flexibility through network automation and programmability. Small business networks require flexibility, like service provider networks, to scale, deploy, and self-heal network infrastructure that comprises of cloud operating systems, virtual machines, containers, vendor networking equipment, and virtual network functions (VNFs); however, as SDN evolves in industry, there has been limited research to develop an SDN architecture to fulfill the requirements of small business networks. This research proposes a network architecture that can abstract, orchestrate, and scale configurations based on small business network requirements. Our results show that the proposed architecture provides enhanced network management and operations when combined with the network orchestration application (NetO-App) developed in this research. The NetO-App orchestrates network policies, automates configuration changes, and manages internal and external communication between the campus networking infrastructure.Comment: 12 pages, 4 figures, To appear in the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Networks & Communications, 28-29 July 2018, Sydney, Australi

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

Deployment of NFV and SFC scenarios

Aquest ítem conté el treball original, defensat públicament amb data de 24 de febrer de 2017, així com una versió millorada del mateix amb data de 28 de febrer de 2017. Els canvis introduïts a la segona versió són 1) correcció d'errades 2) procediment del darrer annex.Telecommunications services have been traditionally designed linking hardware devices and providing mechanisms so that they can interoperate. Those devices are usually specific to a single service and are based on proprietary technology. On the other hand, the current model works by defining standards and strict protocols to achieve high levels of quality and reliability which have defined the carrier-class provider environment. Provisioning new services represent challenges at different levels because inserting the required devices involve changes in the network topology. This leads to slow deployment times and increased operational costs. To overcome the current burdens network function installation and insertion processes into the current service topology needs to be streamlined to allow greater flexibility. The current service provider model has been disrupted by the over-the-top Internet content providers (Facebook, Netflix, etc.), with short product cycles and fast development pace of new services. The content provider irruption has meant a competition and stress over service providers' infrastructure and has forced telco companies to research new technologies to recover market share with flexible and revenue-generating services. Network Function Virtualization (NFV) and Service Function Chaining (SFC) are some of the initiatives led by the Communication Service Providers to regain the lost leadership. This project focuses on experimenting with some of these already available new technologies, which are expected to be the foundation of the new network paradigms (5G, IOT) and support new value-added services over cost-efficient telecommunication infrastructures. Specifically, SFC scenarios have been deployed with Open Platform for NFV (OPNFV), a Linux Foundation project. Some use cases of the NFV technology are demonstrated applied to teaching laboratories. Although the current implementation does not achieve a production degree of reliability, it provides a suitable environment for the development of new functional improvements and evaluation of the performance of virtualized network infrastructures