Advertisement

Constraint-Based Virtualization of Industrial Networks

  • Waseem Mandarawi
  • Andreas Fischer
  • Amine Mohamed Houyou
  • Hans-Peter Huth
  • Hermann de Meer
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

In modern industrial solutions, Ethernet-based communication networks have been replacing bus technologies. Ethernet is no longer found only in inter-controller or manufacturing execution systems, but has penetrated into the real-time sensitive automation process (i.e., close to the machines and sensors). Ethernet itself adds many advantages to industrial environments where digitalization also means more data-driven IT services interacting with the machines. However, in order to cater to the needs of both new and more automation-related communication, a better restructuring of the network and resources among multitenant systems needs to be carried out. Various Industrial Ethernet (IE) standards already allow some localized separation of application flows with the help of Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms. These technologies also expect some planning or engineering of the system which takes place by estimating worst-case scenarios of possible traffic generated by all assumed applications. This approach, however, lacks the flexibility to add new services or to extend the system participants on the fly without a major redesign and reconfiguration of the whole network. Network virtualization and segmentation is used to satisfy these requirements of more support for dynamic scenarios, while keeping and protecting time-critical production traffic. Network virtualization allows slicing of the real physical network connecting a set of applications and end devices into logically separated portions or Slices. A set of resource demands and constraints is defined on a Slice or Virtual Network level. Slice links are then mapped over physical paths starting from end devices through forwarding devices that can guarantee these demands and constraints. In this chapter, the modeling of virtual industrial network constraints is addressed with a focus on communication delay. For evaluation purposes, the modeled network and mapping criteria are implemented in the Virtual Network Embedding (VNE) traffic-engineering platform ALEVIN [1].

Keywords

Field buses Local area networks Scheduling Telecommunication network topology Fieldbus technology Industrial communication systems Optimized datagram transfer Real-time Ethernet system Synchronous scheduling Topology-based addressing Auto configuration Real-time Ethernet Real-time communication Synchronous scheduling 

References

  1. 1.
    Alevin2: a tool for the evaluation of algorithms for embedding virtual networks. http://sourceforge.net/p/alevin/wiki/home/
  2. 2.
    Bassiri B, Heydari SS (2009) Network survivability in large-scale regional failure scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 2nd canadian conference on computer science and software engineering, C3S2E ’09, pp 8387, New York, NY, USA. ACMGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basta A, Barla IB, Hoffmann M, Carle G (2013) QoS-aware optimal resilient virtual networks. In: IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), pp 2251–2255, 9–13 June 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck MT, Linnhoff-Popien C, Fischer A, Kokot F, de Meer H (2014) A simulation framework for virtual network embedding algorithms. In: 2014 16th international telecommunications network strategy and planning symposium (Networks), pp 1–6, 17–19 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck MT, Linnhoff-Popien C (2014) On delay-aware embedding of virtual networks. In: The sixth international conference on advances in future internet, AFINGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bui M, Jaumard B, Harter IBB, Develder C (2014) Scalable algorithms for QoS-aware virtual network mapping for cloud services. In: 2014 international conference on optical network design and modeling, pp 269–274, 19–22 May 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Case J (2002) Introduction and applicability statements for internet standard management framework. In: RFC 3410, IETF, Dec 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen Q, Wan Y, Qiu X, Li W, Xiao A (2014) A survivable virtual network embedding scheme based on load balancing and reconfiguration. In: Network operations and management symposium (NOMS), 2014 IEEE, p 17, May 2014Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng Xiang Su, Sen Zhang Zhongbao, Hanchi Wang, Fangchun Yang, Yan Luo, Jie Wang (2011) Virtual network embedding through topology-aware node ranking. SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 41(2):38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cisco (2010) Industrial ethernet: a control engineers guide. In: Cisco white paperGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen F (2010) The virtualization solution. IEEE Secur Priv IEEE Comput Soc 8:60–63Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    David Eppstein (1998) Finding the k shortest paths. SIAM J Comput 28(2):652–673MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischer A, Botero JF, Duelli M, Schlosser D, Hesselbach X, De Meer H, Margaria T, Padberg J, Taentzer G, Hellbrck H, Luttenberger N, Turau V (eds) (2011) ALEVIN—a Framework to develop, compare, and analyze virtual network embedding algorithms. In: Electronic communications of the EASST, proceedings of the workshop on challenges and solutions for network virtualization (NV2011), EASST, 37, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer A, Botero JF, Beck MT, De Meer H, Hesselbach X (2013) Virtual network embedding: a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 15:1888–1906Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garfinkel T, Rosenblum M (2003) A virtual machine introspection based architecture for intrusion detection. In: Proceedings of network and distributed systems security symposium, pp 191–206Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harrison C, Cook D, McGraw R, Hamilton JA (2012) Constructing a cloud-based IDS by merging VMI with FMA. In: IEEE 11th international conference on trust, security and privacy in computing and communications (TrustCom), pp 163–169, 25–27 June 2012Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huth HP, Houyou AM (2013) Resource-aware virtualization for industrial networks. In: 4th international conference on data communication networking (DCNET 2013), Reykjavik, Iceland, July 2013Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ivaturi K, Wolf T (2014) Mapping of delay-sensitive virtual networks. In: 2014 international conference on computing, networking and communications (ICNC), pp 341–347, 3–6 Feb 2014Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jarray A, Yihong S, Karmouch A (2013) p-Cycle-based node failure protection for survivable virtual network embedding. In: IFIP networking conference, pp 1–9, 22–24 May 2013Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarray A, Yihong S, Karmouch A (2013) Resilient virtual network embedding. In: ICC’13, pp 3461–3465Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jasperneite J, Imtiaz J, Schumacher M, Weber K (2009) A proposal for a generic real-time ethernet system. IEEE Trans Industr Inform 5(2):75–85Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kerschbaum S, Hielscher KS, Klehmet U, German R, Fischbach K, Krieger U (eds) (2014) A framework for establishing performance guarantees in industrial automation networks. In: Measurement, modelling, and evaluation of computing systems and dependability and fault tolerance, vol 8376. Springer International Publishing, pp 177–191Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khan A, Herker S, An X (2013) Survey on survivable virtual network embedding problem and solutions. In: ICNS 2013, the ninth international conference on networking and services, pp 99–104Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laplante P (2007) What every engineer should know about software engineering. In: CRC Press. ISBN 0849372283Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lischka J, Karl H (2009) A virtual network mapping algorithm based on subgraph isomorphism detection. In: Proceedings of the 1st acm workshop on virtualized infrastructure systems and architectures, VISA’09, pp 81–88, New York, NY, USA. ACMGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Markopoulou A, Iannaccone G, Bhattacharyya S, Chuah C-N, Ganjali Y, Diot C (2008) Characterization of failures in an operational ip backbone network. In: IEEE/ACM transactions on networking 16(4):749–762Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oliveira RR, Marcon DS, Bays LR, Neves MC, Buriol LS, Gaspary LP, Barcellos MP (2013) No more backups: toward efficient embedding of survivable virtual networks. In: ICC’13, pp 2128–2132Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ristenpart T, Tromer E, Shacham H, Savage S (2009) Hey, you, get off of my cloud: exploring information leakage in third-party compute clouds. In: CCS ’09: proceedings of the 16th ACM conference on computer and communications security, ACM, pp 199–212Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shengquan L, Chunming W, Min Z, Ming J (2013) An efficient virtual network embedding algorithm with delay constraints. In: 2013 16th international symposium on wireless personal multimedia communications (WPMC), pp 1–6, June 2013Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Siemens Canada Limited: Application note 8: Latency on a switched Ethernet network. 2014.03.21. https://w3.siemens.com/mcms/industrial-communication/en/ruggedcommunication/Documents/AN8.pdf
  31. 31.
    Yang L, Dantu R, Anderson T, Gopal R (2004) Forwarding and control element separation (ForCES) framework. In: RFC 3746, IETF, April 2004Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu Y, Ammar M (2006) Algorithms for assigning substrate network resources to virtual network components. IN: Proceedings of FOCOM 2006, 25th IEEE international conference on computer communications, pp 1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Waseem Mandarawi
    • 1
  • Andreas Fischer
    • 1
  • Amine Mohamed Houyou
    • 2
  • Hans-Peter Huth
    • 2
  • Hermann de Meer
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Computer Networks and Computer CommunicationsUniversity of PassauPassauGermany
  2. 2.Siemens AG, Corporate TechnologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations