Modelling of OpenFlow-based software-defined networks: the multiple node case

Modelling of OpenFlow-based software-defined networks: the multiple node case

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Your details
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
IET Networks — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

OpenFlow (OF) is one of the most widely used protocols for controller-to-switch communication in a software defined network (SDN). Performance analysis of OF-based SDN using analytical models is both highly desirable and challenging. There already exists a very elegant analytical model based on M/M/1 queues to estimate the packet sojourn time and probability of lost packets for the case in which a controller is responsible for only a single node in the data plane. However the literature falls short when it comes to the multiple node case, i.e. when there is more than one node in the data plane. In this work we propose a model to address this challenge by approximating the data plane as an open Jackson network with the controller also modeled as an M/M/1 queue. The model is then used to evaluate the system in the light of some of the metrics, such as; how much time a packet spends on average in an OF-based network and how much data we can pump into the network given the average delay requirements. Finally the PDF and the CDF of the time spent by the packet in an OF-based SDN for a given path is derived.


    1. 1)
      • 1. Jarschel, M., Oechsner, S., Schlosser, D., et al: ‘Modeling and performance evaluation of an OpenFlow architecture’. Proc. of the 23rd Int. Teletraffic Congress (ITC), San Francisco, CA, USA, September 2011, pp. 17.
    2. 2)
    3. 3)
      • 3. Hoelzle, U.: ‘Opening Address: 2012 Open Network Summit’. Available at, accessed March 2014.
    4. 4)
    5. 5)
      • 5. Open Networking Foundation’. Available at, accessed March 2014.
    6. 6)
      • 6. Bozakov, Z., Rizk, A.: ‘Taming SDN controllers in heterogeneous hardware environments’. Second IEEE European Workshop on Software-Defined Networks (EWSDN), Berlin, Germany, October 2013, pp. 5055.
    7. 7)
      • 7. Azodolmolky, S., Nejabati, R., Pazouki, M., et al: ‘An analytical model for software defined networking: a network calculus-based approach’. IEEE Globecom, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, December 2013, pp. 13971402.
    8. 8)
    9. 9)
      • 9. Naous, J., Erickson, D., Covington, G.A., et al: ‘Implementing an OpenFlow switch on the NetFPGA platform’. Proc. of the Fourth ACM/IEEE Symp. on Architectures for Networking and Communications Systems (ANCS), San Jose, CA, USA, November 2008, pp. 19.
    10. 10)
      • 10. Bianco, A., Birke, R., Giraudo, L., et al: ‘OpenFlow switching: data plane performance’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications (ICC), Cape Town, South Africa, May 2010, pp. 15.
    11. 11)
      • 11. Khan, A., Dave, N.: ‘Enabling hardware exploration in software-defined networking: a flexible, portable OpenFlow switch’. IEEE 21st Annual Int. Symp. on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM), Seattle, WA, USA, April 2013, pp. 145148.
    12. 12)
      • 12. NetFPGA’. Available at, accessed November 2014.
    13. 13)
    14. 14)
      • 14. Kleinrock, L.: ‘Queueing systems: theory’ (Wiley Interscience, 1975), vol. 1.

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address