ACUTA Journal of Telecommunications in Higher Education

In This Issue President\u27s Message From the ACUTA CEO Booking lt-High Tech Style Near Field Communication Brings Convenience to Campus Virtualization Coming to Enterprise Networks Preparing Union College\u27s ResNet for the Post-PG Era Using Social Media During Times of Crisis Business Model lnnovation Examples in Education Institutional! Excellence Award: lUanyWare at Indiana Universit

Host-Based Traffic Engineering: Network Endpoints with the Capabilities of SDN-Enabled Switches

IT specialists\u27 need for fine-grained control over traffic flow has recently gained prominence. The software-defined networking (SDN) paradigm provides a viable solution to the problem of directing network connections through arbitrary paths; however, for an enterprise to support traditional SDN it must upgrade most (if not all) of its switches to modern OpenFlow-enabled models. In this paper, we present SHARP, a host-based SDN design that achieves feature parity with traditional switch-based SDNs. SHARP uses VLAN tags and an overlay-style networking protocol to dictate how packets should be routed through a LAN. SHARP implements and surpasses the feature set of switch-based SDNs. To demonstrate the abilities of our system, we incorporate SHARP into PEACE, a next-generation SDN firewall

Survey of Consistent Network Updates

Computer networks have become a critical infrastructure. Designing dependable computer networks however is challenging, as such networks should not only meet strict requirements in terms of correctness, availability, and performance, but they should also be flexible enough to support fast updates, e.g., due to a change in the security policy, an increasing traffic demand, or a failure. The advent of Software-Defined Networks (SDNs) promises to provide such flexiblities, allowing to update networks in a fine-grained manner, also enabling a more online traffic engineering. In this paper, we present a structured survey of mechanisms and protocols to update computer networks in a fast and consistent manner. In particular, we identify and discuss the different desirable update consistency properties a network should provide, the algorithmic techniques which are needed to meet these consistency properties, their implications on the speed and costs at which updates can be performed. We also discuss the relationship of consistent network update problems to classic algorithmic optimization problems. While our survey is mainly motivated by the advent of Software-Defined Networks (SDNs), the fundamental underlying problems are not new, and we also provide a historical perspective of the subject

Evolving NoSQL Databases Without Downtime

NoSQL databases like Redis, Cassandra, and MongoDB are increasingly popular because they are flexible, lightweight, and easy to work with. Applications that use these databases will evolve over time, sometimes necessitating (or preferring) a change to the format or organization of the data. The problem we address in this paper is: How can we support the evolution of high-availability applications and their NoSQL data online, without excessive delays or interruptions, even in the presence of backward-incompatible data format changes? We present KVolve, an extension to the popular Redis NoSQL database, as a solution to this problem. KVolve permits a developer to submit an upgrade specification that defines how to transform existing data to the newest version. This transformation is applied lazily as applications interact with the database, thus avoiding long pause times. We demonstrate that KVolve is expressive enough to support substantial practical updates, including format changes to RedisFS, a Redis-backed file system, while imposing essentially no overhead in general use and minimal pause times during updates.Comment: Update to writing/structur

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

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

Software-Defined Networking: A Comprehensive Survey

peer reviewedThe Internet has led to the creation of a digital society, where (almost) everything is connected and is accessible from anywhere. However, despite their widespread adoption, traditional IP networks are complex and very hard to manage. It is both difficult to configure the network according to predefined policies, and to reconfigure it to respond to faults, load, and changes. To make matters even more difficult, current networks are also vertically integrated: the control and data planes are bundled together. Software-defined networking (SDN) is an emerging paradigm that promises to change this state of affairs, by breaking vertical integration, separating the network's control logic from the underlying routers and switches, promoting (logical) centralization of network control, and introducing the ability to program the network. The separation of concerns, introduced between the definition of network policies, their implementation in switching hardware, and the forwarding of traffic, is key to the desired flexibility: by breaking the network control problem into tractable pieces, SDN makes it easier to create and introduce new abstractions in networking, simplifying network management and facilitating network evolution. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey on SDN. We start by introducing the motivation for SDN, explain its main concepts and how it differs from traditional networking, its roots, and the standardization activities regarding this novel paradigm. Next, we present the key building blocks of an SDN infrastructure using a bottom-up, layered approach. We provide an in-depth analysis of the hardware infrastructure, southbound and northbound application programming interfaces (APIs), network virtualization layers, network operating systems (SDN controllers), network programming languages, and network applications. We also look at cross-layer problems such as debugging and troubleshooting. In an effort to anticipate the future evolution of this - ew paradigm, we discuss the main ongoing research efforts and challenges of SDN. In particular, we address the design of switches and control platforms—with a focus on aspects such as resiliency, scalability, performance, security, and dependability—as well as new opportunities for carrier transport networks and cloud providers. Last but not least, we analyze the position of SDN as a key enabler of a software-defined environment

Dynamic Upgrades for High Availability Systems

In this thesis I show that it is possible to build general-purpose frameworks for efficient, on-line data transformation in support of flexible system services, especially dynamic software updates (DSU). This approach generalizes some of the ideas from prior work on DSU, making those ideas applicable to more situations. In particular, I generalize DSU's notion of in-memory state transformation---normally used to upgrade run-time state to be consistent with the new software---so that it can be applied to data not necessarily stored in memory, and for services other than DSU. To support this thesis, I present three artifacts. First, I present C-strider, a generic, type-aware C heap traversal framework. C-strider constitutes a flexible, easy-to-use framework with which developers can program reusable services that have a heap traversal at their core, e.g., serialization, profiling, invariant checking, and state transformation (in support of DSU). C-strider supports both parallel and single-threaded heap traversals, and I demonstrate that C-strider requires little programmer effort, and the resulting services are efficient and effective. Second, I present KVolve, a data transformation service for NoSQL databases. KVolve is notable in that transformations are carried out on-line and on-demand, as data is accessed, rather than off-line and all at once, which would reduce service availability. Experiments with on-line upgrades of services using KVolve show little overhead during normal operation, and only brief pauses at update-time. Finally, I present Morpheus, a dynamically updatable software-defined network (SDN) controller. Morpheus' architecture is fundamentally distributed, with each service running as a separate process that accesses a shared KVolve instance. Morpheus can update multiple controller applications without loss of availability or degradation of performance