Impact Analysis of Path Selection Strategies over Blockchain-based Routing in Multi-Domain SDN

Year 2022, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 524 - 539, 31.12.2022

Evrim Güler

Abstract

Over the past decade, Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has become one of the most widely used inventions in the field of computer communications. SDN architecture enabled by OpenFlow, among many other praised advantages, has the potential to assist network administrators in providing End-to-End (E2E) Quality of Service (QoS)-guaranteed paths for flows among networks while providing finer-granular flow management. In our earlier work, we introduced QoSChain, which combines the benefits of blockchain technology and SDN for inter-network QoS provisioning. This framework orchestrates a software-driven traffic management system to enable cross-network policy automation, assurance, E2E visibility, control, and validation. In this study, we focus on the impact of path selection strategies on the overall QoSChain performance. Specifically, we evaluate the performance of five simple but effective path selection strategies: First Feasible Path Selection (FFPS), Random Feasible Path Selection (RFPS), Minimum Hop Path Selection (MHPS), FFPS with the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) shortest path at inter-network level (FFPS_BGP), and MHPS with the BGP shortest path at inter-network level (MHPS_BGP). Our experimental results indicate that path selection is crucial to overall performance with hop count minimization delivering superior performance at the expense of initially longer setup times.

Keywords

QoS, SDN, Blockchain, Inter-Domain, Path Selection

Supporting Institution

Tübitak

Project Number

120E448

Thanks

This work is supported by the Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Grant No. 120E448.

Çok Alanlı YTA'da Blok Zinciri Tabanlı Yönlendirme Üzerinden Yol Seçim Stratejilerinin Etki Analizi

Abstract

Son on yılda, Yazılım Tanımlı Ağ Oluşturma (YTA), bilgisayar iletişimi alanında en yaygın kullanılan buluşlardan biri haline geldi. OpenFlow tarafından etkinleştirilen YTA mimarisi, diğer pek çok övgüye değer avantajın yanı sıra, ağ yöneticilerine ağlar arasındaki akışlar için Uçtan Uca (E2E) Hizmet Kalitesi (QoS) garantili yollar sağlama konusunda yardımcı olma potansiyeline sahiptir. Daha önceki çalışmamızda, ağlar arası QoS provizyonu için blok zincir teknolojisi ve SDN'nin faydalarını birleştiren QoSChain'i tanıtmıştık. Bu çerçeve, ağlar arası politika otomasyonu, güvence, E2E görünürlüğü, kontrol ve doğrulamayı etkinleştirmek için yazılım odaklı bir trafik yönetim sistemini düzenler. Bu çalışmada, yol seçim stratejilerinin genel QoSChain performansı üzerindeki etkisine odaklanıyoruz. Spesifik olarak, beş basit ama etkili yol seçim stratejisinin performansını değerlendiriyoruz: İlk Uygun Yol Seçimi (FFPS), Rastgele Uygun Yol Seçimi (RFPS), Minimum Atlama Yolu Seçimi (MHPS), Sınır Ağ Geçidi Protokolü (BGP) ile ağlar arası düzeyde FFPS (FFPS_BGP) ve Sınır Ağ Geçidi Protokolü (BGP) ile ağlar arası düzeyde MHPS (MHPS_BGP). Deneysel sonuçlarımız, başlangıçta daha uzun kurulum süreleri olmasına rağmen üstün performans sağlayan atlama sayısı minimizasyonu ile yol seçiminin genel performans için çok önemli olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

Servis Kalitesi, Blokzincir, YTA, Çoklu Alan, Yol Seçimi

Project Number

120E448

References

• [1] 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. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804516303186
• [2] A. A. Monrat, O. Schel ́en, and K. Andersson, “A survey of blockchain from the perspectives of applications, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 117 134–117 151, 2019.
• [3] P. Wang, X. Liu, J. Chen, Y. Zhan, and Z. Jin, “QoS-Aware Service Composition Using Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts,” in ICSE, ser. ICSE ’18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2018, p. 296–297. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3183440.3194978
• [4] E. Ak and B. Canberk, “BCDN: A proof of concept model for blockchain-aided CDN orchestration and routing,” Computer Networks, vol. 161, pp. 162 – 171, 2019.
• [5] J. Yang, S. He, Y. Xu, L. Chen, and J. Ren, “A Trusted Routing Scheme using Blockchain and Reinforcement Learning for Wireless Sensor Networks,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 970, 2019.
• [6] M. Saad, A. Anwar, A. Ahmad, H. Alasmary, M. Yuksel, and A. Mohaisen, “RouteChain: Towards Blockchain-based Secure and Efficient BGP Routing,” in ICBC, May 2019, pp. 210–218.
• [7] G. Ramezan and C. Leung, “A Blockchain-Based Contractual Routing Protocol for the Internet of Things Using Smart Contracts,” Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 2018, 2018.
• [8] M. Karakus, E. Guler, and S. Uludag, “QoSChain: Provisioning Inter-AS QoS in Software-Defined Networks with Blockchain,” IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, pp. 1–1, 2021.
• [9] E. Guler, M. Karakus, and S. Uludag, “Evaluating path selection strategies with blockchain-based routing in Multi-Domain SDNs,” in 2022 International Balkan Conference on Communications and Networking (BalkanCom) (BalkanCom’22), Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Aug. 2022.
• [10] N. McKeown, T. Anderson, H. Balakrishnan, G. Parulkar, L. Peterson, J. Rexford, S. Shenker, and J. Turner, “Openflow: Enabling innovation in campus networks,” SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69–74, Mar. 2008.
• [11] “OpenFlow Switch Specification (1.5.1).” Open Networking Foundation, March 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.opennetworking.org/software-defined-standards/specifications/
• [12] W. Wang, D. T. Hoang, P. Hu, Z. Xiong, D. Niyato, P. Wang, Y. Wen, and D. I. Kim, “A survey on consensus mechanisms and mining strategy management in blockchain networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, p. 22328–22370, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2896108
• [13] P. Kamboj and S. Pal, “QoS in Software Defined IoT Network Using Blockchain Based Smart Contract: Poster Abstract,” in SenSys, ser. SenSys’19. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, p. 430–431. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3356250.3361954
• [14] Y. E. Oktian, E. N. Witanto, S. Kumi, and S. Lee, “ISP Network Bandwidth Management: Using Blockchain and SDN,” in ICTC, 2019, pp. 1330–1335.
• [15] A. Arins, “Blockchain based Inter-domain Latency Aware Routing Proposal in Software Defined Network,” in AIEEE, 2018, pp. 1–2.
• [16] 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), 2020, pp. 1–6.
• [17] P. Fernando and J. Wei, “Blockchain-Powered Software Defined Network-Enabled Networking Infrastructure for Cloud Management,” in 2020 IEEE 17th Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC), 2020, pp. 1–6.
• [18] P. Podili and K. Kataoka, “TRAQR: Trust aware End-to-End QoS routing in multi-domain SDN using Blockchain,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 182, p. 103055, 2021.
• [19] Q. Qiao, X. Li, Y. Wang, B. Luo, Y. Ren, and J. Ma, “Credible routing scheme of sdn-based cloud using blockchain,” in International Conference of Pioneering Computer Scientists, Engineers and Educators. Springer, 2019, pp. 189–206.
• [20] G. S. Aujla, M. Singh, A. Bose, N. Kumar, G. Han, and R. Buyya, “BlockSDN: Blockchain-as-a-Service for Software Defined Networking in Smart City Applications,” IEEE Network, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 83–91, 2020.
• [21] W. Hou, Z. Ning, L. Guo, and P. Guo, “SDN-based Optimizing Solutions for Multipath Data Transmission Supporting Consortium Blockchains,” in 2018 International Conference on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems (CITS), 2018, pp. 1–5.
• [22] IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. (Last Accessed: 2020-05-31). [Online]. Available: https://www.iana.org/
• [23] M. Caesar and J. Rexford, “Bgp routing policies in isp networks,” IEEE Network, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 5–11, 2005.