Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Service-level agreement aggregation for quality of service-aware federated cloud networking

Service-level agreement aggregation for quality of service-aware federated cloud networking

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

Buy article PDF
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for $120.00
(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.

Since the cloud paradigm becomes increasingly popular for dynamic resources allocation, the flexibility of a cloud is still limited regarding network services and their autonomous federation between different providers. The following architectural approach introduces a generic layered model to orchestrate and federate heterogeneous networks. In particular, an architecture is presented that enables quality of service (QoS) aware parameterisation of network resources in a cloud infrastructure of a single data-centre as well as for a federation. Furthermore, this architecture uses a service-level agreement (SLA) protocol and language to expose key performance indicators and to negotiate appropriate QoS constrains that are applied to the virtually sliced underlying network substrate. In this way, capabilities of the orchestration and the current utilisation of the network are building the foundation for dynamic negotiated SLAs and the within-guaranteed QoS network resources. Therefore an aggregation mechanism is illustrated for merging service-level objectives and for guaranteeing a single SLA that specifies obligations and responsibilities of all participants.


    1. 1)
      • 22. Begtaševiü, F., Van Mieghem, P.: ‘Measurements of the hopcount in internet’. Proc. of Passive and Active Measurement, PAM, 2001, pp. 2324.
    2. 2)
      • 19. Harsh, P., Jegou, Y., Cascella, R., Morin, C.: ‘Contrail virtual execution platform challenges in being part of a cloud federation’. in ‘Towards a service-based Internet’ (LNCS, 6994) (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2011), pp. 5061. Available at:
    3. 3)
      • 1. Korner, M., Stanik, A., Kliem, A.: ‘An approach for QoS constraint networks in cloud environments’. 2013 Fourth Int. Conf. on the Network of the Future (NOF), October 2013, pp. 13.
    4. 4)
      • 14. Lakshminarayanan, K., Stoica, I., Shenker, S., Rexford, J.: ‘Routing as a service’ (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Division, University of California at Berkeley, 2004). Available at:
    5. 5)
      • 15. ‘Cisco’, ‘Cisco Nexus 1000v series switches for VMware VSphere’, Data Sheet June 2014,
    6. 6)
      • 12. Stanik, A., Kao, O., Martins, R., Cruz, A., Tektonidis, D.: ‘Mo-bizz: Fostering mobile business through enhanced cloud solutions’. 2014 14th IEEE/ACM Int. Symp. on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid), May 2014, pp. 915922.
    7. 7)
      • 17. Khan, A., Kiess, W., Perez-Caparros, D., Triay, J.: ‘Quality-of-service (QoS) for virtual networks in OpenFlow MPLS transport networks’. 2013 IEEE Second Int. Conf. on Cloud Networking (CloudNet), November 2013, pp. 1017.
    8. 8)
      • 16. ‘Cisco’, ‘Cisco Nexus 6001 Switch’, Data Sheet June 2014,
    9. 9)
      • 11. Armstrong, D., Djemame, K., Nair, S., Tordsson, J., Ziegler, W.: ‘Towards a contextualization solution for cloud platform services’. 2011 IEEE Third Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), November 2011, pp. 328331.
    10. 10)
      • 4. Salvadori, E., Corin, R., Broglio, A., Gerola, M.: ‘Generalizing virtual network topologies in OpenFlow-based networks’. 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf. (GLOBECOM 2011), December 2011, pp. 16.
    11. 11)
      • 10. Rasheed, H., Rumpl, A., Wäldrich, O., Ziegler, W.: ‘A standards-based approach for negotiating service QoS with cloud infrastructure providers’. eChallenges e-2012 Conf. Proc., 2012.
    12. 12)
      • 18. Carlini, E., Coppola, M., Dazzi, P., Ricci, L., Righetti, G.: ‘Cloud federations in contrail’. Euro-Par 2011: Parallel Processing Workshops, 2012 (LNCS, 7155), pp. 159168. Available at:
    13. 13)
      • 3. Sherwood, R., Gibb, G., Yap, K.-K., et al: ‘Flowvisor: a network virtualization layer’. Technical report Openflow-tr-2009-1, Stanford University, July 2009.
    14. 14)
      • 8. Comuzzi, M., Kotsokalis, C., Rathfelder, C., Theilmann, W., Winkler, U., Zacco, G.: ‘A framework for multi-level SLA management’. Service-Oriented Computing, ICSOC/ServiceWave 2009 Workshops, 2010 (LNCS, 6275), pp. 187196. Available at:
    15. 15)
    16. 16)
      • 6. Koerner, M., Almus, H.: ‘HLA – a hierarchical layer application for OpenFlow management abstraction’. Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. on Network of the Future (NoF'13), Pohang, Korea, October 2013, pp. 14.
    17. 17)
      • 5. Corin, R., Gerola, M., Riggio, R., De Pellegrini, F., Salvadori, E.: ‘Vertigo: network virtualization and beyond’. 2012 European Workshop on Software Defined Networking (EWSDN), October 2012, pp. 2429.
    18. 18)
      • 2. Sherwood, R., Gibb, G., Yap, K.-K., et al: ‘Can the production network be the testbed?’. USENIX Symp. on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), 2010.
    19. 19)
      • 20. Open Network Foundation, : ‘Openflow switch specification/version 1.4.0’, October 2013,
    20. 20)
      • 21. Fei, A., Pei, G., Liu, R., Zhang, L.: ‘Measurements on delay and hop-count of the internet’. IEEE GLOBECOM'98-Internet Mini-Conf., Citeseer, 1998.
    21. 21)
    22. 22)
      • 9. Happe, J., Theilmann, W., Edmonds, A., Kearney, K.T.: ‘A reference architecture for multi-level SLA management’, in Wieder, P., Butler, J.M., Theilmann, W., Yahyapour, R. (Eds.): ‘Service level agreements for cloud computing’ (Springer, New York, 2011), pp. 1326. Available at:

Related content

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address