Cognitive Packets in Large Virtual Networks

Conference paper

Abstract

Network testbeds are useful for protocol performance evaluation. They overcome most challenges commonly involved in live network experimentation, retaining fair realism and repeatability under controllable conditions. However, large-scale testbeds are difficult to set up due to limited resources available to most experimenters. In this paper, we explore the use of hardware virtualisation as an experimental tool to improve resource efficiency, allowing to boost the effective number of nodes available for network testing. By virtualising network routers and links, a cluster environment with off-the-shelf equipment can host hundreds of virtual routers for large-scale network testing. We apply this technique to construct a 800-node Cognitive Packet Networks (CPN) testbed that provides insight into the benefits and limitations of the approach.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been possible in part thanks to the support provided by the UK Technology Strategy Board/EPSRC SATURN Project, the FP7 FIT4Green Project and the computing facilities at Northrup-Grumman UK Ltd.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, T., Reiter, M.K.: Geni: global environment for network innovations distributed services working group (2006). http://www.homes.cs.washington.edu/~tom/support/GDD-06-24.pdf
  2. 2.
    Casado, M., Koponen, T., Ramanathan, R., Shenker, S.: Virtualizing the network forwarding plane. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Programmable Routers for Extensible Services of Tomorrow, PRESTO ’10, pp. 8:1–8:6. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gelenbe, E.: Cognitive packet network. US Patent 6,804,201, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gelenbe, E.: Steps towards self-aware networks. Commun. ACM 52(7), 66–75 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelenbe, E., Lent, R., Xu, Z.: Design and performance of cognitive packet networks. Perform. Eval. 46(2, 3), 155–176 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelenbe, E., Mahmoodi, T.: Energy-aware routing in the cognitive packet network. In: International Conference on Smart Grids, Green Communications, and IT Energy-Aware Technologies (Energy 2011), Venice, Italy 2011Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelenbe, E., Morfopoulou, C.: A framewok for energy aware routing in packet networks. Comput. J. 54(6), 850–859 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelenbe, E., Morfopoulou, C.: Gradient optimisation for network power consumption. In: GreenNets 2011, The First International Conference on Green Communications and Networking, Colmar, France 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelenbe, E., Stafylopatis, A.: Global behavior of homogeneous random neural systems. Appl. Math. Model. 15(10), 534–541 (1991). doi: 10.1016/0307-904X(91)90055-T
  10. 10.
    Jiang, X., Xu, D.: Vbet: a vm-based emulation testbed. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Models, Methods and Tools for Reproducible Network Research, MoMeTools ’03, pp. 95–104. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keller, E., Rexford, J.: The “platform as a service” model for networking. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Internet Network Management Conference on Research on Enterprise Networking, INM/WREN’10, p. 4. USENIX Association, Berkeley (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lent, R.: Design of a MANET testbed management system. Comput. J. 49(4), 171–179 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lent, R.: A sensor network to profile the electrical power consumption of computer networks. In: Proceedings of GLOBECOM Workshops (GC Wkshps), pp. 1433–1437, Miami, 2010. doi: 10.1109/GLOCOMW.2010.5700175
  14. 14.
    Lent, R.: Simulating the power consumption of computer networks. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling Analysis and Design of Communication Links and Networks (IEEE CAMAD), Miami, 2010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    White, B., Lepreau, J., Stoller, L., Ricci, R., Guruprasad, S., Newbold, M., Hibler, M., Barb, C., Joglekar, A.: An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 255–270. USENIX Association, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whiteaker, J., Schneider, F., Teixeira, R.: Explaining packet delays under virtualization. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 41(1), 38–44 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xin, Y., Baldine, I., Mandal, A., Heermann, C., Chase, J., Yumerefendi, A.: Embedding virtual topologies in networked clouds. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Future Internet Technologies, CFI ’11, pp. 26–29. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang, B., Liu, R., Massey, D., Zhang, L.: Collecting the internet as-level topology. SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. 35, 53–61 (2005). doi: 10.1145/1052812.1052825. http://www.doi.acm.org/10.1145/1052812.1052825

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Intelligent Systems and NetworksImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations