logo

SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, Volume 48, Issue 3: 293-314(2018) https://doi.org/10.1360/N112017-00203

An overview of software-defined network measurement technologies

More info
  • ReceivedOct 25, 2017
  • AcceptedFeb 28, 2018
  • PublishedMar 16, 2018

Abstract

In recent years, with the continuous expansion of the size of networks, the complexity of network structure and functionality and the volume of network traffic have immensely increased. This has resulted in severe challenges in configuring, operating and managing traditional networks. As a prominent way of monitoring and handling network status in order to optimize network structure, enhance the quality of service and achieve network error detection and recovery, software-defined networks, as a new emerging network structure, has considered all of these problems and suits these network applications well. This paper is a survey of the state-of-the-art research on measurement technologies in software-defined networks, of which we detail the design concept, performance approach, measurement objects, technical advantages and disadvantages from three standpoints: network performance, topology, and traffic measurement. We mainly cover latency, packet loss and bandwidth measurements when considering network performance measurement. Finally, the technological approaches are summarized and future research issues are discussed.


Funded by

国家自然科学基金(61379145)

国家自然科学基金(61702539)


Acknowledgment

感谢审稿专家的中肯建议及编委的辛勤工作


References

[1] Kreutz D, Ramos F M V, Esteves Verissimo P, et al. Software-defined networking: a comprehensive survey. Proc IEEE, 2014, 103: 10--13. Google Scholar

[2] Cai Z P, Yin J P, Liu F, et al. Efficiently monitoring link bandwidth in IP networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, St. Louis, 2005. Google Scholar

[3] Yan X C, Yin J P, Cai Z P. Survey on network topology discovery algorithm. Comput Eng Appl, 2007, 43: 131--135. Google Scholar

[4] Tsai P W, Hsu C Y, Luo M Y. On the Implementation of Adaptive Flow Measurement in the SDN-enabled Network: A Prototype. APAN Proc, 2015, 40: 7 CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Akyildiz I F, Lee A, Wang P, et al. A roadmap for traffic engineering in SDN-OpenFlow networks. Int J Comput Telecommun Netw, 2014, 71: 1--30. Google Scholar

[6] Zhou T Q, Cai Z P, Xia J, et al. Traffic engineering for software defined networks. J Softw, 2016, 27: 394--417. Google Scholar

[7] Nunes B A A, Mendonca M, Nguyen X N. A Survey of Software-Defined Networking: Past, Present, and Future of Programmable Networks. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials, 2014, 16: 1617-1634 CrossRef Google Scholar

[8] Karakus M, Durresi A. Quality of Service (QoS) in Software Defined Networking (SDN): A survey. J Network Comput Appl, 2017, 80: 200-218 CrossRef Google Scholar

[9] Cai Z P. Network measurement technologies, models and algorithms based on active and passive measurement. Dissertation for Ph.D. Degree. Changsha: National University of Defense Technology, 2005. Google Scholar

[10] Yu C, Lumezanu C, Sharma A, et al. Software-defined latency monitoring in data center networks. In: Proceedings of Software-defined Latency Monitoring in Data Center Networks, New York, 2015. 360--372. Google Scholar

[11] Adrichem N L M V, Doerr C, Kuipers F A. OpenNetMon: network monitoring in OpenFlow software-defined networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium, Krakow, 2014. Google Scholar

[12] Sinha D, Haribabu K, Balasubramaniam S. Real-time monitoring of network latency in software defined networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommuncations Systems, Kolkata, 2015. Google Scholar

[13] Atary A, Bremler-Barr A. Efficient round-trip time monitoring in OpenFlow networks. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications, San Francisco, 2016. Google Scholar

[14] Nguyen H N, Begin T, Busson A, et al. Evaluation of an end-to-end delay estimation in the case of multiple flows in SDN networks. In: Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Network and Service Management, Montreal, 2017. 336--341. Google Scholar

[15] Panwaree P, Kim J, Aswakul C. Packet delay and loss performance of streaming video over emulated and real OpenFlow networks. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Technical Conference on Circuit/Systems Computers and Communications, At Phuket, 2014. Google Scholar

[16] Fu C, John W, Meirosu C. EPLE: an efficient passive lightweight estimator for SDN packet loss measurement. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Network Function Virtualization and Software Defined Networks, Palo Alto, 2017. 192--198. Google Scholar

[17] John W, Meirosu C. Low-overhead packet loss and one-way delay measurements in service provider SDN. ONS, 2014. http://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/ons2014-poster-john.pdf. Google Scholar

[18] Li Y, Miao R, Kim C, et al. LossRadar: fast detection of lost packets in data center networks. In: Proceedings of the 12th International on Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Irvine, 2016. 481--495. Google Scholar

[19] Cheng P, Ren F Y, Shu R, et al. Catch the whole lot in an action: rapid precise packet loss notification in data centers. In: Proceedings of the 11th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Seattle, 2014. 17--28. Google Scholar

[20] Chan Edmond W W, Chen A, Luo X P, et al. TRIO: measuring asymmetric capacity with three minimum round-trip times. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Tokyo, 2011. Google Scholar

[21] John W, Meirosu C. Low-overhead packet loss and one-way delay measurements in service provider SDN. ONS, 2014. http://www.sjalander.com/wolfgang/publications/ons2014-poster-john.pdf. Google Scholar

[22] Sezer S, Scott-Hayward S, Chouhan P K, et al. Are we ready for SDN? implementation challenges for software-defined networks. IEEE Commun Mag, 2013, 51: 36--43. Google Scholar

[23] Yassine A, Rahimi H, Shirmohammadi S. Software defined network traffic measurement: current trends and challenges. IEEE Instrum Meas Mag, 2015, 18: 42--50. Google Scholar

[24] Tootoonchian A, Ghobadi M, Ganjali Y. OpenTM: traffic matrix estimator for OpenFlow networks. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Passive and Active Measurement, Zurich, 2010. 201--210. Google Scholar

[25] Chowdhury S R, Bari M F, Ahmed R, et al. Payless: a low cost network monitoring framework for software defined networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium, Ahmed, 2014. Google Scholar

[26] Rasley J, Stephens B, Dixon C, et al. Planck: millisecond-scale monitoring and control for commodity networks. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM, Chicago, 2014. Google Scholar

[27] Sekar V, Reiter M K, Willinger W, et al. cSamp: a system for network-wide flow monitoring. 2008. https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/nsdi08/tech/full_papers/sekar/sekar_html/. Google Scholar

[28] Yu C, Lumezanu C, Zhang Y P, et al. Flowsense: monitoring network utilization with zero measurement cost. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement, Hong Kong, 2013. Google Scholar

[29] Benson T, Anand A, Akella A, et al. MicroTE: fine grained traffic engineering for data centers. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Tokyo, 2011. Google Scholar

[30] Suh Junho, Kwon T T, Dixon C, et al. Opensample: a low-latency, sampling-based measurement platform for commodity SDN. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Madrid, 2014. Google Scholar

[31] Yu M, Jose L, Miao R. Software defined traffic measurement with OpenSketch. In: Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Lombard, 2013. Google Scholar

[32] Charikar M, Chen K, Farach-Colton M. Finding frequent items in data streams. In: Proceedings of International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Turku, 2004. Google Scholar

[33] Cormode G, Muthukrishnan S. What's new: finding significant differences in network data streams. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking, 2005, 13: 1219-1232 CrossRef Google Scholar

[34] Li Y L, Miao R, Kim C, et al. FlowRadar: a better netflow for data centers. In: Proceedings of the 13th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation, Santa, 2016. Google Scholar

[35] Liu Z X, Manousis A, Vorsanger G, et al. One sketch to rule them all: rethinking network flow monitoring with UnivMon. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM, Florianopolis, 2016. Google Scholar

[36] Schweller R, Li Z, Chen Y. Reversible Sketches: Enabling Monitoring and Analysis Over High-Speed Data Streams. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking, 2007, 15: 1059-1072 CrossRef Google Scholar

[37] Huang Q, Jin X, Lee P P C, et al. SketchVisor: robust network measurement for software packet processing. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, Los Angeles, 2017. Google Scholar

[38] Alipourfard O, Moshref M, Yu M L. Re-evaluating measurement algorithms in software. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, Philadelphia, 2015. Google Scholar

[39] Moshref M, Yu M L, Govindan R, et al. DREAM: dynamic resource allocation for software-defined measurement. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM, Chicago, 2014. Google Scholar

[40] Sun P, Yu M, Freedman M J. HONE: Joint Host-Network Traffic Management in Software-Defined Networks. J Netw Syst Manage, 2015, 23: 374-399 CrossRef Google Scholar

[41] Xu H, Yu Z, Qian C. Minimizing Flow Statistics Collection Cost Using Wildcard-Based Requests in SDNs. IEEE/ACM Trans Networking, 2017, 25: 3587-3601 CrossRef Google Scholar

[42] Bahnasy M, Idoudi K, Elbiaze H. OpenFlow and GMPLS Unified Control Planes: Testbed Implementation and Comparative Study. J Opt Commun Netw, 2015, 7: 301-308 CrossRef Google Scholar

[43] Yonghong F, Jun B, Jianping W. A dormant multi-controller model for software defined networking. China Commun, 2014, 11: 45-55 CrossRef Google Scholar

[44] Wang J L, Shou G C, Hu Y H, et al. A multi-domain SDN scalability architecture implementation based on the coordinate controller. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, Chengdu, 2016. Google Scholar

[45] Liu C, Malboubi A, Chuah C N. OpenMeasure: adaptive flow measurement inference with online learning in SDN. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops, San Francisco, 2016. Google Scholar

[46] Farshad A, Georgopoulos P, Broadbent M, et al. Leveraging SDN to provide an in-network QoE measurement framework. In: Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops, Hong Kong, 2015. Google Scholar

[47] Dacier M C, Dietrich S, Kargl F, et al. Network attack detection and defense — security challenges and opportunities of software-defined networking. Dagstuhl Rep, 2017, 6: 1--28. Google Scholar

[48] Saxena M, Rakesh K. A recent trends in software defined networking (SDN) security. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development, New Delhi, 2016. Google Scholar

[49] Hong D K, Ma Y D, Banerjee S, et al. Incremental deployment of SDN in hybrid enterprise and ISP networks. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research, Santa Clara, 2016. Google Scholar

[50] Canini M, Feldmann A, Levin D, et al. Panopticon: incremental deployment of software-defined networking. ACM Symposium on SDN Research, 2016. https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/sdn-resources/IEEE-papers/panopticon-incremental-deplyment-of-sdn.pdf. Google Scholar

Copyright 2019 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备18024590号-1