2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2016.12.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A stochastic model for transit latency in OpenFlow SDNs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(28 reference statements)
2
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In their work, they compare the performance of the M/G/1 with M/M/1 and the results from the work support the initial suggestions made by authors in [14] that M/G/1 is a more accurate approximation of the SDN controller performance than M/M/1. Also, the results from the experiments conducted in [23] further validate the claim that M/G/1 is a better fit than M/M/1 for the evaluation of the performance of SDN controller.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In their work, they compare the performance of the M/G/1 with M/M/1 and the results from the work support the initial suggestions made by authors in [14] that M/G/1 is a more accurate approximation of the SDN controller performance than M/M/1. Also, the results from the experiments conducted in [23] further validate the claim that M/G/1 is a better fit than M/M/1 for the evaluation of the performance of SDN controller.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 59%
“…The results presented showed that M/G/1 provided more accurate approximation of the SDN controller performance than M/M/1. In the same way, Javed, Iqbal, Saleh, Haider and Ilyas in [23] demonstrated through experiments that M/G/1 distribution using log-normal distribution mixture as the service distribution is closer to reality in terms of SDN controller performance evaluation than M/M/1 distribution.…”
Section: E Modelling Based On M/g/1 Distributionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Yen and Su 28 model a two-stage tandem network, where the switch is modeled as M/M/1 queue, but the model does not consider any distinguishing between the control and data traffic. Javed et al 29 clearly show via experiments that the M/M/1 queue is not a good model for OF switches; instead, they use M/G/1 model. Very similarly, in Lay et al 30 both switches and the controller are modeled as MMPP/1/1, and Keshav et al in Sood et al 31 use M/Geo/1 model where the service time is geometrically distributed but yet again not taking a separate consideration for the different types of packets.…”
Section: Buffer Modeling For Of Switchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model presented in [76] have assumed the switch as M/G/1 model with log-normal mixture model as the service distribution. The work in [76] further demonstrates M/M/1 as a poor fit for the switch through experiments.…”
Section: Queueing Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The model presented in [76] have assumed the switch as M/G/1 model with log-normal mixture model as the service distribution. The work in [76] further demonstrates M/M/1 as a poor fit for the switch through experiments. The model presented in [77] is the first to model SDN hardware switch but does not consider a hardware data plane.…”
Section: Queueing Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%