Changes between Version 8 and Version 9 of 2012/Projects/OpenFlowMF


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 14, 2012, 9:24:54 PM (5 years ago)
Author:
aravind
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • 2012/Projects/OpenFlowMF

    v8 v9  
    4141 
    4242Given that the difference between the above two methods lies in the number of header fields that have to be re-written in each packet, experiments were conducted on MININET and ORBIT to evaluate how this affects the throughput. The setup used was a single OpenFlow switch with two nodes attached to it. {{{iperf}}} was then used to compute the throughput between these two nodes under different OpenFlow actions.  
    43 __Results Using MININET:__  
    44 Only OFActionOutput (out port only): 2.85 Gbps 
    45 Re-writing Soure and destination MAC addresses of each packet: 2.74 Gbps 
    46 __Results Using Pronto 3290:__ 
    47 Only OFActionOutput (out port only): 943 Mbps 
    48 Re-writing Source and destination MAC addresses of each packet: 943 Mbps 
     43[[BR]] 
     44__Results Using MININET:__ [[BR]] 
     45Only OFActionOutput (out port only): 2.85 Gbps[[BR]] 
     46Re-writing Soure and destination MAC addresses of each packet: 2.74 Gbps[[BR]] 
     47__Results Using Pronto 3290:__[[BR]] 
     48Only OFActionOutput (out port only): 943 Mbps[[BR]] 
     49Re-writing Source and destination MAC addresses of each packet: 943 Mbps[[BR]] 
    4950 
    5051It can be seen that on a hardware switch where the OpenFlow actions are done using TCAMs, increase in complexity of the actions does not cause any decrease in the throughput. Hence, having the MobilityFirst router visible (and having to re-write the header fields in a larger number of packets) does not have any drawbacks in terms of performance.