Annals of Telecommunications

, Volume 71, Issue 11–12, pp 639–647 | Cite as

An experimental feasibility study on applying SDN technology to disaster-resilient wide area networks

  • Kien NguyenEmail author
  • Shigeki Yamada


The Internet may get catastrophic impacts when unexpected disasters such as earthquakes, tsunami, etc. happen. Therefore, it is necessary to equip resilient technologies for the Internet backbones in order to face challenges (e.g., link, device failures, rerouting traffic, etc.) in the disasters. The emerging software-defined networking (SDN) technology, which logically centralizes network function on a controller and remotely manages distributed SDN devices, shows a lot of potential. This paper presents an experimental feasibility study on applying SDN to wide area backbones for the disaster-resilient purpose. To show the efficiency of SDN technology in responding fast to the network situation changes, we conduct three evaluations on real SDN devices and large-scale SDN-based wide area networks (WANs) assuming disaster scenarios. In the first evaluation, we explore the proactive recovery mechanism using the fast failover on SDN devices. In the second one, we investigate the communication latency between controllers and SDN devices, which is one of the most important factors in the reactive recovery in the software-defined backbone. In the last one, we experiment the fast end-to-end reactive recovery behavior of a TCP flow in a disaster scenario. The evaluation results clearly indicate that the SDN-based WAN is technically feasible and effective for fast recovery from disasters.


Disaster-resilient Internet backbone WAN SDN OpenFlow Fast Switchover 


  1. 1.
    Sterbenz JPG, Hutchison D, Çetinkaya EK, Jabbar A, Rohrer JP, Schöller M, Smith P (2010) Resilience and survivability in communication networks: strategies, principles, and survey of disciplines. Comput Netw 54(8):1245–1265CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guo C, Wu H, Tan K, Shi L, Zhang Y, Lu S (2008) Dcell: a scalable and fault-tolerant network structure for data centers. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2018, pp 75–86Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singla A, Hong CY, Popa L, Godfrey PB (2012) Jellyfish: networking data centers randomly. In: Proceedings of the USENIX NSDI 2012, pp 225–238Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Niranjan Mysore R, Pamboris A, Farrington N, Huang N, Miri P, Radhakrishnan S, Subramanya V, Vahdat A (2009) Portland: a scalable fault-tolerant layer 2 data center network fabric. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, pp 39–50Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffin TG, Wilfong G (1999) An analysis of BGP Convergence Properties. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 29(4):277– 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, Parulkar G, Peterson L, Rexford J, Shenker S, Turner J (2008) Openflow: enabling innovation in campus networks. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 38(2)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soliman M, Nandy B, Lambadaris I, Ashwood-Smith P (2012) Source routed forwarding with software defined control, considerations and implications. In: Proceeding of the ACM CoNEXT 2012 student workshop, pp 43–44Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keller E, Ghorbani S, Caesar M, Rexford J (2012) Live migration of an entire network (and its hosts). In: Proceeding of the ACM HotNets XI, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ko S, Chung K (2014) A handover-aware seamless video streaming scheme in heterogeneous wireless networks. Ann Telecommun 69(3-4):239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yap K, Kobayashi M, Sherwood R, Huang TY, Chan M, Handigol N, McKeown N (2010) Openroads: empowering research in mobile networks. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 40(1):125–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain S, Kumar A, Mandal S, Ong J, Poutievski L, Singh A, Venkata S, Wanderer J, Zhou J, Zhu M, Zolla J, Hölzle U, Stuart S, Vahdat A (2013) B4: experience with a globally-deployed software defined wan. In: Proceeding of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanaumi Y, Saito S, Kawai E, Ishii S, Kobayashi K, Shimojo S (2013) RISE: a wide-area hybrid OpenFlow network testbed. IEICE Trans 96-B(1):108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Y, Beheshti N, Tatipamula M (2011) On resilience of split-architecture networks. In: Proceeding of the IEEE GLOBECOM 2011, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beheshti N, Zhang Y (2012) Fast failover for control traffic in software-defined networks. In: Proceeding of the IEEE GLOBECOM 2012, pp 2689–2694Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharma S, Staessens D, Colle D, Pickavet M, Demeester P (2011) Enabling fast failure recovery in OpenFlow networks. In: Proceeding of the international workshop on design of reliable communication networks 2011, pp 164–171Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu Y, Shanzhi C, Xin L, Yan W (2011) A framework of using openflow to handle transient link failure. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on transportation, mechanical, and electrical engineering 2011, pp 2050–2053Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen K, Minh QT, Yamada S (2013) A software-defined networking approach for disaster-resilient WANs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE ICCCN’13, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raghavan B, Casado M, Koponen T, Ratnasamy S, Ghodsi A, Shenker S (2012) Software-defined internet architecture: decoupling architecture from infrastructure. In: Proceeding of the ACM HotNets 2012, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yeganeh SH, Ganjali Y (2014) Beehive: towards a simple abstraction for scalable software-defined networking. In: Proceeding of the ACM HotNets XIII, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharma S, Staessens D, Colle D, Pickavet M, Demeester P (2013) Openflow: meeting carrier-grade recovery requirements. Comput Commun 36(6):656–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen K, Tran Minh Q, Yamada S (2014) Novel fast switchover on OpenFlow switch. In: Proceeding of the IEEE CCNC 2014, pp 543–544Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuźniar M, Perešíni P, Vasić N, Canini M, Kostić D (2013) Automatic failure recovery for software-defined networks. In: Proceeding of the ACM HotSDN 2013, pp 159–160Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azim MA, Kabir M (2015) Availability analysis of shared backup path protection under multiple-link failure scenario in wdm networks. Ann Telecommun 70(5-6):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Source O. Packet generator.
  26. 26.
    Heller B, Sherwood R, McKeown N (2012) The controller placement problem. In: Proceeding of the ACM HotSDN, pp 7– 12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Science and Information Network (SINET).
  28. 28.
    Knight S, Nguyen HX, Falkner N, Bowden RA, Roughan M (2011) The internet topology zoo. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 29(9):1765–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Handigol N, Heller B, Jeyakumar V, Lantz B, McKeown N (2012) Reproducible network experiments using container-based emulation. In: Proceeding of the ACM CoNEXT 2012, pp 253– 264Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Zeng P, Nguyen K, Shen Y, Yamada S (2014) On the resilience of software defined routing platform. In: Proceedings of the IEEE APNOMS, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.

Copyright information

© Institut Mines-Télécom and Springer-Verlag France 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smart Wireless LaboratoryNational Institute of Information and Communications TechnologyKanagawaJapan
  2. 2.Research Strategy OfficeNational Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations