An Analytical Study to Justify the Transformation from Traditional to Software-Defined Network in Terms of QoS Parameters

Alsammarraie, Mahmood Jalal Ahmad; Noman, Haeeder Munther; Hussein, Ahmed Hefdhi Hussein; Abdulrazzaq, Ali Abdulwahhab

doi:10.2478/cait-2025-0015

Abstract

Software-Defined Network is an emerging paradigm that has evolved to address weaknesses in traditional networks in recent years. The idea behind this technology is to separate the control plane from the data plane, making network management and programmability more flexible and easier. This paper aims to investigate the influence of the increasing number of pings (100-500) on two network platforms: software-defined network and traditional network. Ping is defined as a simple Internet application that lets users check whether a specific target IP address is available and able to receive requests in computer network administration. Moreover, Ping is also used as a diagnostic tool to make sure the host machine that the user is attempting to contact is up and running. The simulation was carried out using Mininet (the Mininet graphical user interface) to set up hosts and switches. Results revealed that software-defined networks improved the total number of packets received (22-40) %, average round-trip time (56-64) %, and reduced the total number of dropped packets (83-58) %. Therefore, it can be concluded that software software-defined network paradigm may be adopted for the network infrastructure’s growing demand.

References

Shamugam, V., I. Murray, J. A. Leong, A. S. Sidhu. Software Defined Networking Challenges and Future Direction: A Case Study of Implementing SDN Features on OpenStack Private Cloud. – IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 121, 2016, 012003. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899x/121/1/012003.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huang, T., F. R. Yu, C. Zhang, J. Liu, J. Zhang, Y. Liu. A Survey on Large-Scale Software Defined Networking (SDN) Testbeds: Approaches and Challenges. – IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 19, 2017, No 2, pp. 891-917. DOI: 10.1109/comst.2016.2630047.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jimenez, M. B., D. Fernandez, J. E. Rivadeneira, L. Bellido, A. Cardenas. A Survey of the Main Security Issues and Solutions for the SDN Architecture. – IEEE Access, Vol. 9, 2021, pp. 122016-122038. DOI: 10.1109/access.2021.3109564.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McKeown, N. OpenFlow. – ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 38, 2008, No 2, pp. 69-74. DOI: 10.1145/1355734.1355746.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Anerousis, N., P. Chemouil, A. A. Lazar, N. Mihai, S. B. Weinstein. The Origin and Evolution of Open Programmable Networks and SDN. – IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 23, 2021, No 3, pp. 1956-1971. DOI: 10.1109/comst.2021.3060582.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nisar, K., E. R. Jimson, M. H. Bin Ahmad Hijazi, A. A. Ag. Ibrahim, Y. J. Park, I. Welch. A New Bandwidth Management Model Using Software-Defined Networking Security Threats. – In: Proc. of 13th IEEE International Conference on Application of Information and Communication Technologies (AICT’19), 2019. DOI: 10.1109/aict47866.2019.8981784.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lai, Y.-C., A. Ali, M. M. Hassan, M. S. Hossain, Y.-D. Lin. Performance Modeling and Analysis of TCP Connections over Software Defined Networks. – In: Proc. of IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM’17), 2017, DOI: 10.1109/glocom.2017.8254078.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Review for “Controller Placement Problem during SDN Deployment in the ISP/Telco Networks: A Survey”. 2023. DOI: 10.1002/eng2.12801/v2/review1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Casado, M., N. McKeown, S. Shenker. From Ethane to SDN and Beyond. – ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Vol. 49, 2019, No 5, pp. 92-95. DOI: 10.1145/3371934.3371963.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ángel Barrera Pérez, M., N. Y. Serrato Losada, E. Rojas Sánchez, G. Mancilla Gaona. State of the Art in Software Defined Networking (SDN). – Visión Electrónica, Vol. 13, 2019, No 1, pp. 178-194. DOI: 10.14483/22484728.14424.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Li, T., J. Chen, H. Fu. Application Scenarios Based on SDN: An Overview. – Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1187, 2019, No 5, 052067. DOI: 10.1088/1742 6596/1187/5/052067.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blial, O., M. Ben Mamoun, R. Benaini. An Overview on SDN Architectures with Multiple Controllers. – Journal of Computer Networks and Communications, Vol. 2016, 2016, pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1155/2016/9396525.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wazirali, R., R. Ahmad, S. Alhiyari. SDN-OpenFlow Topology Discovery: An Overview of Performance Issues. – Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, 2021, No 15, 6999. DOI: 10.3390/app11156999.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Benabbou, J., K. Elbaamrani, N. Idboufker. Security in OpenFlow-Based SDN, Opportunities and Challenges. – Photonic Network Communications, Vol. 37, 2018, No 1, pp. 1-23. DOI: 10.1007/s11107-018-0803-7.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Liao, L., V. C. M. Leung. LLDP-Based Link Latency Monitoring in Software-Defined Networks. – In: Proc. of 12th International Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM’16), 2016. DOI: 10.1109/cnsm.2016.7818442.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

An Analytical Study to Justify the Transformation from Traditional to Software-Defined Network in Terms of QoS Parameters

Abstract

Paradigm

My account