Welcome to Francis Academic Press
Login | Register

The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 2020, 2(11); doi: 10.25236/FSST.2020.021120.

Review on the 10-Year Development of Software Defined Networks

Author(s)

Yiming Tang1, Qiurong Chen2, Jiayi Xu3, Yixiao Chen4

Corresponding Author:
Yiming Tang
Affiliation(s)

1 Faculty of Engineering, the University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

[email protected]

2 Shijiazhaung No.24 High School, Shijiazhuang, China

3 Faculty of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, China

4 Shandong Experimental High School, Jinan, China


Abstract

Software defined network (SDN) has existed and been under developing for more than a decade. It presents a centralised method to manage networks rather than the distributed traditional way. SDN has become a hot topic and along with such popularity, it has received both constructive advice and pragmatic criticism. This paper evaluates the development of SDN from its birth to recent critiques via reviewing important published papers in the history of SDN, including the invention of SDN, how SDN has been implemented and deployed widely, direction toward which OpenFlow may evolve and the reality of SDN against its hype. Rather than much of detailed elaboration, this paper mainly focuses on the impact on SDN brought by each paper's invention/conclusion.

Keywords

SDN, Openflow, B4, Traffic engineering, P4

Cite This Paper

Yiming Tang, Qiurong Chen, Jiayi Xu, Yixiao Chen. Review on the 10-Year Development of Software Defined Networks. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2020) Vol. 2 Issue 11: 138-147. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2020.021120.

References

[1] N. McKeown et al (2008). OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 69-74.

[2] S. Jain et al (2013). B4: experience with a globally-deployed software defined WAN. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 3-14.

[3] P. Bosshart et al (2014). P4: programming protocol-independent packet processors. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 87-95.

[4] N. McKeown, J. Rexford (2016). Clarifying the differences between P4 and OpenFlow.

[5] Open Networking Foundation (2014). OpenFlow switch specification”, Opennetworking.org.

[6] P4 Language Consortium (2018). P4 gains broad adoption, foins Open Networking Foundation (ONF) and Linux Foundation (LF) to accelerate next phase of growth and innovation.

[7] N. Katta, M. Hira, C. Kim, A. Sivaraman, J. Rexford (2016). HULA: scalable load balancing using programmable data planes”, Proceedings of the Symposium on SDN Research - SOSR '16.

[8] F. Hauser, M. Schmidt, M. Haberle, M. Menth (2020). P4-MACsec: dynamic topology monitoring and data layer protection with MACsec in P4-based SDN. IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 58845-58858