Yazılım Tanımlı Ağlarda Trafik Yönetimi İçin Blokzincir Destekli Kaynak Yönlendirmesinin Uygulanması

Kontrol ve veri katmanları, Yazılım Tanımlı Ağlarda (YTA) bölünmüştür. Kontrol ve veri düzlemlerinin ayrılmasıyla, yeni ağ uygulamaları daha basit ve bağımsız bir şekilde geliştirilebilir. Öte yandan, Yazılım Tanımlı Ağların dezavantajları birçok sorun oluşturmaktadır. Geniş Alan Ağları (WAN'lar) gibi büyük ölçekli ağlarda, daha fazla yayılma gecikmesi, ağ yakınsama süresine önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunmaktadır. Ek olarak, geleneksel YTA, büyük ölçekli ağlarda denetleyici konumunun ağ performansı üzerindeki etkisi nedeniyle ağ tasarım esnekliğini kısıtlar. YTA-bazlı kaynak yönlendirmesi, paket başlık alanının bir paketin ağ üzerindeki yolunu belirtmek için kullanıldığı ve yukarıdaki sorunlara uygulanabilir bir çözüm olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu çalışma, SoRBlock adlı kaynak yönlendirme tabanlı uçtan uca trafik yönetimi çerçevesini sunmaktadır. SoRBlock'ta, ağlar arası yönlendirme, blokzincir teknolojisini kullanırken, ağ içi yönlendirme, YTA-bazlı kaynak yönlendirme tekniğine dayanmaktadır. Simülasyon sonuçları, önerilen kaynak yönlendirme tabanlı SoRBlock çerçevesinin, yol kurulum süresini (Path Setup Time - PST) ve işlenen denetleyici mesajlarının (Controller Messages Processed - CMP) sayısını azaltarak YTA ağlarında geleneksel hiyerarşik yönlendirme yaklaşımı olan HRA'dan daha iyi performans gösterdiğini göstermektedir. Önerilen SoRBlock mimarisi 45ms ve 65ms aralığında olmak üzere, tüm simülasyon çalıştırmalarında aynı (aynı kaynak ve hedef düğüm) hizmet isteklerinin kullanıldığı senaryoda, HRA yaklaşımının artan düğüm - denetleyici ve denetleyici - denetleyici gecikmelerinden dolayı HRA yönteminden 130ms ve 200ms aralığında olmak üzere neredeyse üç kat daha az toplam PST sunmaktadır. Öte yandan SoRBlock ([75ms – 90ms]), farklı hizmet istekleri (farklı kaynak ve hedef) kullanıldığında HRA'dan ([150ms – 175ms]) iki kat daha az PST göstermektedir. İşlenen Denetleyici Mesajları (CMP) bakımından, etki alanı (domain) sayısı arttığında HRA ([7 - 15]), SoRBlock'tan ([3 - 10]) yaklaşık %50 daha fazla denetleyici mesajı işlerken, SoRBlock çerçevesinde ki CMP ([10 - 17]), HRA çerçevesinde ([15 - 20]) CMP'ye, etki alanlarındaki düğüm sayısı artarken oran olarak yaklaşmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kaynak Yönlendirme, Blokzincir, Yazılım Tanımlı Ağlar, Trafik Yönetimi

Implementation of Blockchain-Assisted Source Routing for Traffic Management in Software-Defined Networks

The control and infrastructure layers are split into Software-Defined Networks (SDNs). With the control and infrastructure planes split, new network applications may be developed with more simplicity and greater independence. On the other hand, the disadvantages of SDN create a slew of questions. In large-scale networks, such as Wide Area Networks (WANs) covering huge areas, more propagation delays substantially contribute to network convergence time. In addition, traditional SDN restricts network design flexibility due to the influence of controller location on network performance in large-scale networks. SDN-based source routing (SR) has emerged as a viable solution to the issues above, where the packet header field is used to specify a packet's route. This study presents an SR-based End-to-End (E2E) traffic management framework called SoRBlock. In SoRBlock, inter-domain routing uses blockchain technology, while intra-domain routing relies on the SR technique in SDNs. The simulation results show that the proposed SR-based SoRBlock framework outperforms the traditional hierarchical routing approach, HRA, in SDN networks by lowering path setup time (PST) and the number of controller messages. While the same (i.e., identical origin and target) service requests were used for all runs in the simulations, the proposed SoRBlock architecture presents almost three times less total PST between 45ms and 65ms than the HRA method between 130ms and 200ms due to the HRA approach's increased node-controller and controller-controller latencies. On the other hand, SoRBlock shows two times less PST ([75ms – 90ms]) than HRA ([150ms – 175ms]) when different service requests (i.e., different origin and target) were used. Concerning Controller Messages Processed (CMP), the HRA deals nearly 50% more controller messages between 7 and 15 than the SoRBlock between 3 and 10 when the number of domains varies, while the CMP in the SoRBlock scheme ([10 - 17]) approaches that in the HRA framework ([15 - 20]) regarding the ratio while the count of nodes rises in domains.

Keywords:

Source Routing, Blockchain, Software Defined Networks, Traffic Management,

PDF

___

[1] D. Kreutz, F. M. V. Ramos, P. Esteves Verissimo, C. Esteve Rothenberg, S. Azodolmolky, and S. Uhlig, “Software-Defined Networking: A Comprehensive Survey,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 14–76, Jan. 2015.
[2] M. Karakus and A. Durresi, “Quality of Service (QoS) in Software Defined Networking (SDN): A survey,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 80. pp. 200–218, 2017.
[3] A. Ghiasian, “Impact of TCAM Size on Power Efficiency in a Network of OpenFlow Switches,” IET Networks, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 367–371, Nov. 2020.
[4] M. Karakus and A. Durresi, “A Survey: Control Plane Scalability Issues and Approaches in Software-Defined Networking (SDN),” Computer Networks, vol. 112, pp. 279-293, 2017.
[5] P. L. Ventre et al., “Segment Routing: A Comprehensive Survey of Research Activities, Standardization Efforts, and Implementation Results,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 182–221, 2021.
[6] A. Abujoda, H. R. Kouchaksaraei, and P. Papadimitriou, “SDN-based Source Routing for Scalable Service Chaining in Datacenters,” in Wired/Wireless Internet Communications: 14th IFIP WG 6.2 International Conference (WWIC 2016), Thessaloniki, Greece, 2016, pp. 66–77.
[7] A. Hari, T. V Lakshman, and G. Wilfong, “Path Switching: Reduced-State Flow Handling in SDN using Path Information,” in Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Heidelberg, Germany, 2015, pp. 1–7.
[8] M. Karakus and E. Guler, “RoutingChain: A Proof-of-Concept Model for a Blockchain-Enabled QoS-Based Inter-AS Routing in SDN,” in 2020 IEEE International Black Sea Conference on Communications and Networking (BlackSeaCom), Odessa, Ukraine, 2020, pp. 1-6.
[9] M. Karakus and A. Durresi, “A Scalable Inter-AS QoS Routing Architecture in Software Defined Network (SDN),” in Proceedings - International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA 2015), Gwangju, Korea (South), 2015, pp. 148–154.
[10] M. Soliman, B. Nandy, I. Lambadaris, and P. Ashwood-Smith, “Exploring Source Routed Forwarding in SDN-based WANs,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Sydney, Australia, 2014, pp. 3070–3075.
[11] Y. Zhang et al., “StEERING: A Software-Defined Networking for Inline Service Chaining,” in 2013 21st IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), Goettingen, Germany, 2013, pp. 1–10.
[12] R. M. Ramos, M. Martinello, and C. Esteve Rothenberg, “SlickFlow: Resilient Source Routing in Data Center Networks Unlocked by OpenFlow,” in 38th Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2013, pp. 606–613.
[13] C. Guo et al., “Secondnet: A Data Center Network Virtualization Architecture with Bandwidth Guarantees,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2010, pp. 1–12.
[14] S. A. Jyothi, M. Dong, and P. B. Godfrey, “Towards a Flexible Data Center Fabric with Source Routing,” in Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on Software Defined Networking Research (SOSR ’15). Santa Clara, CA, USA, 2015, pp. 1-8.
[15] K. Papadopoulos and P. Papadimitriou, “Leveraging on Source Routing for Scalability and Robustness in Datacenters,” in 2019 IEEE 2nd 5G World Forum (5GWF), Dresden, Germany, 2019, pp. 148–153.
[16] The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4, IETF RFC 4728, 2007.
[17] Segment Routing with IS-IS Routing Protocol, Draft-previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing-02, IETF (Work in Progress), 2013.
[18] R. S. Guimarães et al., “M-PolKA: Multipath Polynomial Key-Based Source Routing for Reliable Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2639–2651, 2022.
[19] T. Sugiura, K. Takahashi, K. Ichikawa, and H. Iida, “Acar: An Application-Aware Network Routing System using SRv6,” in 2022 IEEE 19th Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2022, pp. 751–752.
[20] S. Komajwar and T. Korkmaz, “SPRM: Source Path Routing Model and Link Failure Handling in Software-Defined Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 2873–2887, 2021.
[21] G. N. Kumar, K. Katsalis, P. Papadimitriou, P. Pop, and G. Carle, “Failure Handling for Time-Sensitive Networks using SDN and Source Routing,” in 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Network Softwarization (NetSoft), Tokyo, Japan, 2021, pp. 226–234.
[22] J. Xia, P. Cui, Z. Li, and J. Lan, “SRCV: A Source Routing based Consistency Verification Mechanism in SDN,” in 2021 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computer Technology, Information Science and Communication (CTISC), Shanghai, China, 2021, pp. 77–81.
[23] Q. Dong, J. Li, Y. Ma, and S. Han, “A Path Allocation Method Based on Source Routing in SDN Traffic Engineering,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Smart Cloud (SmartCloud), Tokyo, Japan, 2019, pp. 163–168.
[24] P. Lin et al., “A West-East Bridge based SDN Inter-Domain Testbed,” Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 190–197, Feb. 2015. 1268
[25] N. McKeown et al., “OpenFlow: Enabling Innovation in Campus Networks,” SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69–74, Mar. 2008.
[26] A. Erdős P. and Rényi, “On the Strength of Connectedness of a Random Graph,” Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungarica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 261–267, 1964.