Mobile Networks and Applications

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 906–917 | Cite as

A SDN-Based Framework for Fine-Grained Inter-domain Routing Diversity

  • Yangyang Wang
  • Jun BiEmail author
  • Keyao Zhang


The Internet reserves numerous potential path diversity among densely connected autonomous systems (ASes). However, the Internet routing is controlled by Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which has limitations in path diversity expression and cooperation between ASes. The emergence of software defined networking (SDN) scheme provides flexible control over networks. In this paper, we leverage the programmability of SDN, and propose a new routing control plane, named RCS. It can support flexible inter-domain forwarding control, and enable network functions chaining along inter-domain paths. In RCS, network functions are abstracted and disseminated between SDN ASes. Customer networks can set up desired routing paths for particular applications, such as multipath routing. RCS can be deployed incrementally to apply SDN on current inter-domain settings. In our experimental analysis based on BGP data, the provision of RCS control at only a few ASes can lead to much potential path diversity.


Software defined networking (SDN) Internet routing BGP Multipath routing 



This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (No.61472213).


  1. 1.
    Xu W, Rexford J (2006) MIRO: multi-path interdomain routing. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 36(4):171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marques P, Raszuk R, McPherson D et al (2009) Dissemination of flow specification rules. RFC5575. Accessed 1 August 2016
  3. 3.
    Akella A, Krishnamurthy A (2004) A Highly Available Software Defined Fabric. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM workshop on hot topics in networks. doi: 10.1145/2670518.2673884
  4. 4.
    Caesar M, Caldwell D, Feamster N et al (2005) Design and implementation of a routing control platform. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on symposium on networked systems design & implementation-volume 2. USENIX Association, vol 2, pp 15–28Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casado M, Koponen T, Shenker S et al (2012) Fabric: a retrospective on evolving SDN. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on hot topics in software defined networks. ACM, pp 85–90. doi: 10.1145/2342441.2342459
  6. 6.
    Feamster N, Balakrishnan H, Rexford J et al (2004) The case for separating routing from routers. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on future directions in network architecture. ACM, pp 5–12Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gao L (2001) On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw (ToN) 9(6):733–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta A, Vanbever L, Shahbaz M et al (2014) Sdx: a software defined internet exchange. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 44(4):551–562. doi: 10.1145/2740070.2626300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kotronis V, Dimitropoulos X, Ager B (2012) Outsourcing the routing control logic: better Internet routing based on SDN principles. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM workshop on hot topics in networks. ACM, pp 55–60. doi: 10.1145/2390231.2390241
  10. 10.
    Vasileios K, Rowan K, Matthias R et al (2016) Stitching inter-domain paths over IXPs. In: Proceedings of the symposium on SDN research (SOSR ’16). ACM, New York, Article 17, 12 pp. doi: 10.1145/2890955.2890960
  11. 11.
    Raszuk R, Fernando R, Patel K et al (2012) Distribution of diverse BGP paths. RFC 6774., Accessed 1 August 2016
  12. 12.
    Lakshminarayanan K, Stoica I, Shenker S et al (2004) Routing as a Service. Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed 1 August 2016
  13. 13.
    Lin P, Hart J, Krishnaswamy U et al (2013) Seamless Interworking of SDN and IP. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 43(4):475–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin P, Bi J, Wang Y (2015) WEBridge: west–Ceast bridge for distributed heterogeneous SDN NOSes peering. Secur Commun Netw 8(10):1926–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luckie M, Huffaker B, Dhamdhere A et al (2013) AS relationships, customer cones, and validation. In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on internet measurement conference. ACM 2013, pp 243–256. doi: 10.1145/2504730.2504735
  16. 16.
    Nascimento M R, Rothenberg C E, Salvador M R et al (2011) Virtual routers as a service: the routeflow approach leveraging software-defined networks. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on future internet technologies. ACM 2011, pp 34–37. doi: 10.1145/2002396.2002405
  17. 17.
    Rothenberg C E, Nascimento M R, Salvador M R et al (2012) Revisiting routing control platforms with the eyes and muscles of software-defined networking. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on hot topics in software defined networks. ACM 2012, pp 13–18. doi: 10.1145/2342441.2342445
  18. 18.
    CAIDA: cooperative association for internet data analysis, The CAIDA AS Relationships Dataset. Accessed 1 August 2016
  19. 19.
    Cisco Segment Routing. Accessed 1 August 2016
  20. 20.
    Internet2 BGP routing tables. Accessed 12 January 2016
  21. 21.
    RIPE RIS Project. Accessed 12 January 2016
  22. 22.
    PCH BGP routing tables. Accessed 12 January 2016
  23. 23.
    University of Oregon Route Views Project. Accessed 12 January 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology (TNList)Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, Department of Computer ScienceTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations