2017 2nd International Conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE)
OSPF Cost Impact Analysis on SDN Network
Ronald Adrian Akhmad Dahlan
Department of Electrical Universitas Amikom Yogyakarta
Engineering and Informatics Indonesia
Vocational College alland@amikom.ac.id
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
ronald.adr@ugm.ac.id
Abstract— Software Defined-Network is a new technology in the
network engineering. This technology allows a server which is called
by a controller and it controls all connected devices. All
configurations and resources of network devices become centralized
to the controller. One of them is routing configuration. This makes
it easier for network administrators to configure routing on complex
networks. This study focused on OSPF implementation and QoS
performance analysis on SDN networks. OSPF implementation can
be configured using cost and no cost. This configuration can be
done as a configuration of cost settings on conventional networks. It
affects the selection of main data paths on OSPF routing. This
implementation in this research used the Mikrotik devices. Data
retrieval involves convergence time and some QoS parameters such
as Throughput, PLR, Jitter and Delay. In testing phase used traffic
data which generated by iperf and D-ITG with variations of existing
data types. The goal of this research is to find the best routing
configuration on SDN networks, especially in OSPF. This research
can be expanded with the various parameters and complex topology.
Keywords : SDN, QoS, Delay, Jitter, Cost.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years SDN technology has become an interesting
topic for researchers. SDN technology is a network technology
in which the infrastructure part of the device, ie control plane
and data plane is done separation, so the routing policy can be
done centrally through the controller. Centralized network
control SDN makes network settings easier and flexible. Current
SDN development has covered things such as load balancing,
VLANs, and one of them concerning routing protocols through
RouteFlow [1].
The architectural in SDN and conventional network will
make a fundamental difference from the performance sector.
This study was conducted by analyzing the performance of the
existing OSPF routing protocols on SDN and conventional
networks. It based on cost and without cost by utilizing
Routeflow [2]. OSPF routing protocol was selected because it is
one of the most widely used routing protocols. We use a variable
cost as a benchmarking instrument because OSPF is an LSA
routing protocol. The best route will be determined based on the
cost value [3]. Similar research has also been done using
different protocol types, ie RIP and EBGP or using other
978-1-5386-0658-2/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 198
Khoreul Anam
Department of Electrical
Engineering and Informatics
Vocational College
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
khoerulanam96@gmail.com
services such as SNHX-IP for RYU controller [4]. There is a
fundamental difference because the use of real network devices
as part of the role of forwarding plane will get more realistic
results with conditions on the field. Through this topic is
expected to be produced output with equivalent parameters that
can determine the best choice in determining the routing
protocol used in the network.
SDN is a new paradigm in network development [5].
Research field of routing is done to analyze how the
performance of routing protocols previously implemented in
conventional networks and then implemented in new paradigm
technology. SDN research is generally still conduct on mininet.
Mininet hosts run standard linux networking software and
switches that support OpenFlow for highly flexibility custom
routing and SDN.
Several studies have been done on the SDN network such as
SDN controller performance testing, POX and Floodlight.
Floodlight give better management of large amounts of data and
requires a very high data flow settings than the others. POX
provides a more constant handling guarantee for whatever
number of hosts [6]. That research becomes one example of
SDN research without routing function. On a large network,
routing needs can not be avoided either on conventional
networks or SDNs. Routing requirements on the SDN network
can be configured by some controllers, such as the use of
RouteFlow and SNHX-IP based on the RYU controller [7].
The use of RouteFlow controllers in research has been
successfully applied to several routing protocols, such as OSPF,
eBGP, and RIP. Research carried out through simulation routing
using the eBGP protocol and performed on the SDN network by
retrieving QoS (Quality of Service) data states meets ITU-T
standards if it flows background traffic up to 75 Mbps. From the
test results also obtained some things, where the results of
convergence time, and Routing overhead is influenced by the
number of switches and features.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we
explain the previous and related work to our research. Section
III is the method. We provide result in section IV. Finally, we
conclude in Section V.
 2017 2nd International Conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE)

II. RELATED WORK | |

. (4)
Yamei et all in 2016 did research on performance tests on
Explanation :
SDN. The study compared two controllers, OpenDaylight and
ONOS. Tests are performed on different topologies to know of- : One-way delay variation
channel time, delay and recovery time [6]. : receive time – i.
: transmit time ke – i
The research we did tested the SDN network using ospf : packet amount
routing. The focus of this research is to find the best value of
non-cost and cost OSPF comparisons in various types of data
generated such as video, VoiP and general data. We used
routeflow as a controller. IV. RESULT
The first scenario in this test is the use of OSPF as the routing
III. METHOD protocol on the SDN network without cost setting. The results
obtained are as follows:
This research used the following network topology as shown
from figure 1 and figure 2.

Figure 1. Non Cost OSPF Topology Figure 3. Data Delay Traffic on Non-Cost SDN
Based on Figure 3 above shows that the value of delay for
data service delivery is fluctuating, which has an average value
ranging from 0.006584 s - 0.009474 s for every multiple of
giving background traffic. However, the average on the graph
above is still in a stable range because both the decline and the
increase are not too significant. The above also shows that giving
background traffic on the link does not affect significantly.
Significant effect occurs when giving background traffic of 100
Mbps reaching 0.009474 s from the previous 0.006068 s when
background traffic is given at 90 Mbps. Overall average of data
Figure 2. Cost OSPF Topology service delay for scenario of SDN architecture usage without
modification cost 0,006725455 s.
Testing is done by generating various data types and
baground traffic using iperf and D-ITG. Data packet is captured
by wireshark. This research is implemented directly using
mikrotik devices. We analyze the delay and jitter from the above
topology.
Delay formulation can be shown as equation (1).
∆ & (1)
Explanation :
: one-way delay value
: transmit time
: receive time

Jitter formulation can be shown as equation (2), (3) and (4). Figure 4. VoIP Delay Traffic on Non-Cost SDN
Jitter is a delay variation which produced from various data
transmission. Other test results based on Figure 4 show that the delay value
for service delivery in the form of VoIP has increased with the
(2) giving of background traffic. The resulting average value ranges
(3) from 0.005917 s - 0.009271 s for any given traffic background
multiples. The trend of increase in delay value also tends to be

199
 2017 2nd International Conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE)
stable, it is indicated starting from giving background of traffic
20 Mbps - 80 Mbps which range of value increase ranges from
3-19%. Significant effect occurs when giving background traffic
of 100 Mbps reaching 0.009271 s from the previous 0.006068 s
when background traffic is given at 90 Mbps or an increase of
23%. Overall average VoIP service delay for scenario of SDN
architecture usage without modification cost 0,007060909 s.
Figure 5. Video Delay Traffic on Non-Cost SDN
Meanwhile, the result of testing on video service delay as
shown in Figure 5 explains that the delay is fluctuating. The
lowest delayed average value in this trial occurs when the video
service provider is given a background value of 30 Mbps, which
is 0.003472 s. This value becomes one of the decline. Decrease
in the value of other delay also occurs at the time of giving
background 80 Mbps traffic which is a further decrease from the
previous point of 70 Mbps. Where previously it had increased
the highest point ie 0.008435 s then down 22% to 0.006548 s,
and continue the decline to the point of 0.003822 s (decrease of
-42%). It becomes the deepest decline among other points. As
for the increase in the value of delay, the highest delay value is
when given background traffic worth 60 Mbps which is on the
average delay of 0.008435 s or increased 32%. The average
value that experienced the highest increase was when the
network was over 40 Mbps traffic, as it experienced an increase
of 91%. Overall the delay value is an average percentage
increase of 14% from the 1 Mbps - 100 Mbps test.
Figure 6. Jitter Traffic on Non-Cost SDN
Figure 6 shows the jitter state when the sample measurement
is a successful data service traffic. In the picture above shows
that the increase in jitter value occurs when reaching the level of
background traffic measurement of 30 Mbps. It is characterized
by the average sample value of jitter of 0.001509 s. When
compared to the average sample rate when it flows over 20 Mbps
200
traffic background, it shows an increase of 65%. This can occur
due to the influence of traffic load and the amount of congestion
in the network causing packet delay to vary. But the average
value of data traffic jitter when the background traffic 40 Mbps
tend to experience a downward trend to 100 Mbps point. It is
noted that the decrease of jitter tedalam value when the
background of traffic traffic of 100 Mbps, which became
0.000614 s from the previous 0.000764 s. This can happen
because the network has a bottleneck condition, so the received
packet has a relatively same arrival time.
Figure 7. Data Delay Traffic on Cost SDN
Figure 7 above shows that the delay values for mobile data
traffic are varied and tend to experience an upward trend, with
the average value of traffic samples ranging from 0.004909273
s as a whole. Significant effect occurs when giving background
traffic of 30 Mbps which increased by 48% resulting in delay
value reaches 0.005576 s. Another increase occurred when given
background traffic of 100 Mbps, delay value rose by 38% and
became the highest value, that is 0.006423 s. The picture above
also shows that giving background traffic on the link has a small
effect on the delay value, especially data traffic.
Figure 8. VoIP Delay Traffic on Cost SDN
The results in Figure 8 show that the delay values for voip
traffic are fluctuating and tend to form an upward trend as the
background traffic grew. Nevertheless the overall delay value is
declared stable because of the small range of difference between
the increase and the decrease that occurs, which is only about
2%. The magnitude of the increase in delay delay yields an
average percentage of 15% along the upward trend, while the
downward trend is percentage on average by 11%. Significant
 2017 2nd International Conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE)
influence occurred when giving background traffic of 80 Mbps
which happened decrease of 28% to 0,005194 s, after which
happened rebound equal to 39% when flowing background 90
Mbps. Overall average service delay of voip is 0,006564818 s.
Figure 9. Video Delay Traffic on Cost SDN
On the other side as shown in Figure 9 the resulting video
traffic delay values tend to experience an upward trend as the
background traffic flows. This is reinforced by the average
percentage percentage increase of 7%. On average, sampling
traffic flow of 20 Mbps load becomes the lowest delay value and
becomes the deepest percentage of decline of 26% before finally
rebounding on the flow of background traffic afterwards.
Figure 10. Jitter Traffic on Non-Cost SDN
Figure 10 above shows the value of jitter derived from the
sample data traffic. In the figure shows that the value of jitter
reaches the highest value when the measurement flows through
the background traffic of 30 Mbps. It is characterized by the
average sample value of jitter reaching 0.001543 s. However,
the highest percentage increase occurs when the network is
201
flown with 20 Mbps traffic background which causes a 35%
increase. This happens because of the influence of traffic loads
and large congestion within the network resulting in packet
delay varies. After the background traffic of 30 Mbps the
average jitter value has decreased trend up to 100 Mbps. The
average percentage of jitter impairment trend occurred by 13%.
This can happen because the network has a bottleneck condition.
V. CONCLUSION
The application of configuration cost modification on the
SDN network has an influence on network performance.
Comparison of SDN and conventional network scenarios based
on two parameters (QoS and convergence time) using either cost
modification or not. It indicates that the best delay average value
is generated by the SDN network using the cost setting of 5.947
ms. The value is the lowest compared to others. Overall it shows
that SDN performs better than conventional when running OSPF
routing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is funded by funding capacity improvement of
young lecturer of Universitas Gadjah Mada.
REFERENCES
[1] G. N. Nde and R. Khondoker, “SDN testing and debugging tools: A
survey,” in 2016 5th International Conference on Informatics,
Electronics and Vision (ICIEV), 2016, pp. 631–635.
[2] A. Rego, S. Sendra, J. M. Jimenez, and J. Lloret, “OSPF routing protocol
performance in Software Defined Networks,” in 2017 Fourth
International Conference on Software Defined Systems (SDS), 2017, pp.
131–136.
[3] K. Németh, A. Kőrösi, and G. Rétvári, “Optimal OSPF traffic engineering
using legacy Equal Cost Multipath load balancing,” in 2013 IFIP
Networking Conference, 2013, pp. 1–9.
[4] R. K. Arbettu, R. Khondoker, K. Bayarou, and F. Weber, “Security
analysis of OpenDaylight, ONOS, Rosemary and Ryu SDN controllers,”
in 2016 17th International Telecommunications Network Strategy and
Planning Symposium (Networks), 2016, pp. 37–44.
[5] S. Chakraborty, S. Chakraborty, and S. Nandi, “Beyond conventional
routing protocols: Opportunistic path selection for IEEE 802.11s mesh
networks,” in 2013 IEEE 24th Annual International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2013,
pp. 3224–3228.
[6] F. Yamei, L. Qing, and H. Qi, “Research and comparative analysis of
performance test on SDN controller,” in 2016 First IEEE International
Conference on Computer Communication and the Internet (ICCCI),
2016, pp. 207–210.
[7] J. Stringer et al., “Cardigan: SDN distributed routing fabric going live at
an Internet exchange,” in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Computers and
Communications (ISCC), 2014, pp. 1–7.