See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340229620

Routing Optimization in SDN using Scalable Load Prediction

Conference Paper · December 2019

DOI: 10.1109/GIIS48668.2019.9044960

CITATIONS READS
4 172

3 authors:

Majdoub Manel Ali El Kamel

University of Sousse University of Sousse
6 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Habib Youssef
University of Sousse
238 PUBLICATIONS   3,976 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and evaluation of an IP switch architecture optimized for switching packets flows presenting different qualities of services View project

SDN/NFV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Majdoub Manel on 24 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 GIIS'19 1570605357
1

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
Routing Optimization in SDN using Scalable Load
5
 
6
 
Prediction
7
 
Manel Majdoub ∗ , Ali El Kamel† and Habib Youssef‡
8
 
9
 
PRINCE Lab
10
 
11
  University of Sousse, Tunisia
12
  Email: ∗ manelmaj 2007@hotmail.com, † ali.el.kamel@hotmail.com, ‡ habib.youssef@fsm.rnu.tn
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
  Abstract—With the exponential growth of data traffic and be unable to achieve those objectives. Therefore, it is necessary
17
  the rapid development of smart devices, networks are becoming to introduce intelligence within routing processes.
18
  more and more heterogeneous and complex. Therefore, managing Obviously, Deep Learning (DL) is a powerful technology
19
  network resources with traditional routing features is no longer
able to add intelligence to various applications such as traffic
20
  advised. More intelligence needs to be deployed.
However, deploying intelligence in traditional networks seems prediction, classification, recognition and, especially, routing
21
  processes. Clearly, the architecture of SDN is very suitable for
to be hard to achieve since they are naturally distributed. The
22
  emerging of Software Defined Networking (SDN) will ease the DL application since it is inherently centralized. Moreover,
23
  introduction of intelligence in networks. In this vein, Deep the application of DL algorithms is straightforward since
24
  Learning (DL) is considered the most promising concept for
programmability is a fundamental feature in SDN.
25
  intelligence delivery.
In conclusion, the introduction of intelligence in SDN brings
26
  In this paper, we combine Deep learning (DL) with SDN in or-
der to improve the performance of routing techniques efficiently. many advantages and leads to efficient real-time controller
27
 
In this work, we analyse the algorithm denoted ”Predicting of decisions in the routing process and the path selection. In
28
  Future load-based routing (PFLR)” and we prove that it is not the routing process, the prediction of time-dependent future
29
  scalable in Very Large-Scale Networks(VLSN). Therefore, we
bandwidth is a key that helps to optimize resource allocation
30
  suggest an enhancement of this algorithm to achieve scalability
31
  by predicting available future bandwidth on path-basis in spite and to avoid bottlenecks. Besides, Artificial Neural Networks
32
  of link-basis. Predicted values are obtained using a MultiLayer (ANN) are used to predict time series forecasting. Although
Perceptron (MLP) neural network and applied in the Dijkstra many ANN models are defined in the literature, MultiLayer
33
 
algorithm to find the optimal path according to a reciprocal Perceptron (MLP) are the most commonly used neural net-
34
  metric. The proposed approach is denoted Scalable Predicting
35
  works in time series prediction, according to [2] .
of future load-based routing (SPFLR). Experiments show that
36
  the proposed approach outperforms parallel ones by achieving In this paper, an intelligent routing algorithm is proposed. It
37
  significant load balancing through the network. uses DL to achieve optimized resource allocation which helps
38
  to provide best QoS for incoming flows. Mainly, the path
Index Terms—SDN , DL, load balancing, MLP.
39
  selection is based on predicting future available bandwidth
40
  through an MLP model. Initially, MLP is used to predict
41
  I. I NTRODUCTION the future available bandwidth on each link. The predicted
42
  values are used to optimize routing decisions. This is known
43
 
44
 
45
 
I N the previous years, Software Defined Networking (SDN)
drew attention of service providers due to its ability of
offering flexibility, programmability and fine-grained control
as the ”Predicting of future load-based routing” algorithm
(PFLR) [3]. Although PFLR has provided promising results
in terms of rejection ratio, it falls short of scalability. Indeed,
46
  over switches. SDN is an evolved logically centralized net- PFLR seems to be unsuitable to be applied in large-scale
47
  work which consists of a controller with a global view of networks due to the large number of links to be controlled.
48
  the network state and many switches which forward packets Moreover, the deployment of PFLR in traditional IP-networks
49
  according to flow table rules. Communication between con- is associated with high complexity since those networks are
50
  trollers and switches is achieved through efficient open and naturally distributed.
51
  standard protocols such as OpenFlow [1]. To deal with the previous shortcomings, the Scalable Pre-
52
  Furthermore, SDN consists of the separation between the dicting of Future load-based routing (SPFLR) algorithm is
53
  control plane and the data plane. Thus, this separation makes introduced. SPFLR consists of predicting the available band-
54
  the control of flows more flexible, maintenance management width on a selected subset paths instead of on each link. This
55
  and network operation simpler and routing process more helps to reduce the complexity of links management and can
56
  dynamic. With the tremendous amount of data resulting from ensure efficient QoS-aware packet forwarding.
57
  the emerging of new applications, routing process has become The remaining of this paper is organized as follows : Section
60
  a paramount issue that must be focused on in order to optimize 2 presents the related work. Section 3 details PFLR algorithm.
61
  network resources utilization and perform routing process with FFNN architecture is described in section 4. the evaluation and
62
  QoS support. However, traditional routing protocols seem to the experimental results of PFLR are presented in section 5.
63
 
64
 
65
 
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 1
on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

In section 6, SPFLR approach is described and its validation
through experimentation is evaluated and compared to PFLR.
Finally, section 7 draws a general conclusion.
II. R ELATED WORK
Many studies have focused on introducing Deep Learning
(DL) in different network architectures and various domain
applications.
In legacy IP networks, author in [3] proposes the predicting
of future load-based routing (PFLR) algorithm which is based
on DL. In order to reduce network congestion and enhance
resource utilization, this algorithm combines the predicted load
with the actual load of each link. PFLR is divided into two
phases. In the first phase, the future available bandwidth on
each link is predicted. In the second phase, the link weight
is updated basing on a reciprocol formula which combines
the predicted future bandwidth with the current residual band-
width. Thus, the best path is selected using classical Dijkstra
algorithm basing on already computed link weights. In this
work, the author uses Feed Forward Neural Networks (FFNN)
to predict future available bandwidth.
In SDN networks, DL is used in various domain applica-
tions such as transportation sector, wireless network and IOT.
Indeed, DL and SDN are used in transportation sector and
especially in Vehicular Cyber-Physical Systems (VCPS) to
control end-to-end traffic [4]. Moreover, Convolutional Neural
Networks (CNN) are proposed basing on time-dependent
network state (available bandwidth, capacity, resource utiliza-
tion...) in order to achieve an optimal path selection for an
efficient packet delivery.
IN [5], DL is introduced to allocate channels intelligently on
each link in the network which can avoid congestion and
improve the quality of transmission.
The work in [6] deploys a deep reinforcement learning mecha-
nism using an agent and three signals (state, action and reward)
to optimize routing.
Finally, [7] defines a set of features which are built to forecast
in advance the results of a re-routing operation, basing on the
quantities returned by OpenFlow.
III. P REDICTING OF F UTURE L OAD - BASED ROUTING :
PFLR
The PFLR [alg1] consists of collecting a time-series value of
the available bandwidth on each link which is used to predict
the future available bandwidth. A network is defined as a graph
G=(N,L), where N is the set of nodes and L is the set of links.
For each li ∈ L, we denote Bw(li , t) the current available
bandwidth in link li at time t. Previous t − n values of the
available bandwidth in this link, collected each period of m
seconds, must be memorized to be used to predict Bw(li , t +
1). This predicted value is used to update link weights in order
to find the best path that maximizes the available bandwidth
in the future. In PFLR, a new weight is introduced as the
reciprocal of available bandwidth (RBW). It is computed for
each link using the equation 1. The best path is the path with
the minimum weight.
(1 − α) α gorithm is recognized as the most used algorithm to minimize
RBW = + (1)
Bw(li , t) Bw(li , t + 1)
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 2
on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2
Where α denotes the weight prediction.
The prediction of future available bandwidth Bw(li , t+1) is
computed each period of X seconds, recognized as the window
size (WS), using an MLP model which has shown a high
accuracy with nonlinear time-series forecasting.
In PFLR algorithm, the prediction is made in decentralized
way. This means that in each section of the network, a specific
node is designated to achieve prediction. This node must have
a global view of the section for which it is the responsible.
Moreover, it must be so efficient to run DL algorithms.
Clearly, the application of PFLR in classical networks seems
to be complex and its feasibility must be deeply discussed.
Obviously, SDN is well-designed to support this kind of
algorithms. An SDN controller is natively suitable for running
DL algorithms so that it is responsible for the prediction
process. Its implication helps to enhance performance of QoS-
aware routing algorithms. Especially by obtaining the global
status of network, the logically centralized node will be able to
take intelligent decisions on routing and path selection which
may significantly improve QoS provisioning and delivery.
Algorithm 1: predicting of future load-based routing
(PFLR)
Input :
The network topology and all residual link
capacities.
The path requests between different
ingress-egress pairs.
Output : Routed paths through the network.
Algorithm:
1) Predict the future available BW in all links in the
network after a specified WS using ANN.
2) Repeat the following steps until the time of WS has
elapsed.
a) Compute the reciprocal of available BW using
the following equation:
(1 − α) α
RBW (li , t) = +
bw(li , t) bw(li , t + 1)
where α = (prediction weight).
b) Update the link weight formula with RBW
c) Compute the best path using the normal routing
algorithm without changing anything.
3) Repeat the previous steps and so on.
Upon receiving the first packet of a new flow, the ingress
switch checks for a flow table entry that matches the flow at-
tributes. If no entry is found, the ingress switch communicates
a Packet-In message to the controller. As a result, the controller
selects the suitable path using an appropriate routing process
and an up-to-date network state database and replies using a
Packet-Out message toward the ingress switch. Generally, the
routing process is based on two features: i) a cost value on
each link from the network and ii) an optimization algorithm
that minimizes the resulting cost on a given path. Dijkstra al-
end-to-end path costs. Furthermore, costs are based on current

status of links and do not consider future changes in that status.
As a result, future network fluctuations which are not expected
may lead to routing process failure. The introduction of Deep
Learning has overcome this shortcoming. It is possible now
to predict the future link state through time-series forecasting
using DL techniques.
To deal with the feasibility of the PFLR algorithm, we
suggest an extension to the basic architecture of the RYU
controller. This extension consists of adding 3 modules which
are: data collection module, prediction module and routing
algorithm module (Figure 1).
Fig. 1: The structure of Ryu
controller
A. Data Collection Module
Periodically, the controller probes all switches in the net-
work by sending an OFPPortStatsRequest message to query
statistics on local ports. Hence, switches communicate re-
quested values through an OFPortStatsReply message. There-
after, the controller computes available bandwidth for each link
in the network. This process is repeated every WS seconds.
All information are saved with the history link state module.
B. Future Available Bandwidth Prediction Module
This module consists of two processes: a training process
and a validation process. For each link, an MLP model is
defined. It is expressed as a quadruple Mli = (X, H1 , H2 , O),
where X is the set of inputs, H1 and H2 are two hidden
layers and O is the output layer. The controller runs training
process for all links in a parallel way. The training process
consists of the application of the previously defined model
on a subset of the collected data. The resulting model after
training must be validated using another subset of data. The
result of the validation process must endorse or disapproveof
the effectiveness of the proposed learning model. If the model
is approved, the controller starts using it to predict the future
available bandwidth on the link. Predicted bandwidth will be
used to adjust the link metric defined as RBW, then, the metric
is used in Dijkstra algorithm to establish suitable paths.
Given a set of n inputs X(lm , t) = (bw(lm , t −
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 3
on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
3
n), · · · , bw(lm , t)), each perceptron n1i from the first hidden
layer is associated with an output h1i which is computed using
the equation 2:
Xn
h1i = sigmoid( wji bw(lm , t − j)) (2)
j=1
where wji denotes the link weight between the input j and the
perceptron i.
In the same way, given a set of p outputs H 1 = (h11 , · · · , h1p )
from the first hidden layer, each perceptron from the second
hidden layer n2i is associated with an output h2i computed
using the equation3:
Xp
h2i = sigmoid( wji h1j ) (3)
j=1
where wji denotes the link weight between the perceptron n1j
and the perceptron n2i . Finally, the output bw(li , t + 1) is
computed as follows (equation 4):
Xk
bw(lm , t + 1) = sigmoid( wj h2j ) (4)
j=1
where wj denotes the link weight between the perceptron n2j
and the output perceptron. This value is then used to compute
the link weight RBW (lm , t) needed for the routing process.
C. Routing Decision Algorithm
The suitable path computation is based on the Dijkstra
algorithm using the RBW link weight which depends on both
the residual bandwidth and the predicted available bandwidth.
Given a link li ∈ L, the bandwidth bw(li , t) and bw(li , t + 1)
are used to compute the metric RBW (li , t) using the equation
1.
Let bw(li , t + 1)1 and bw(li , t + 1)2 be two predicted values
of the available bandwidth on link li where bw(li , t + 1)1 >
bw(li , t + 1)2 . The new metric has reciprocal changes re-
garding the bandwidth which means that RBW (li , t)1 <
RBW (li , t)2 . Thus, the best path is defined as the path
that achieves RBW (P, t) = min(RBW (li , t)). This path is
li ∈P
associated with the maximum available bandwidth.
IV. D EEP L EARNING BASED ON FFNN
The learning model of MLP is expressed through a
quadruple (X, H1 , H2 , O) where X is an input layer, H1 and
H2 are hidden layers and O is the output layer (Fig. 2). The
input layer contains 5 neurons. The two hidden layers contain
12 and 10 neurons respectively. The output layer contains one
neuron. The set of collected data is divided into forks. Each
fork contains 5 inputs plus one output. F=48 forks are used
in the training process while 12 forks are used to validate the
model. The training process is finalized through n epochs. At
the end of each epoch, the prediction accuracy is computed
through the Mean Squared Error (Equation 5):
n
1X
MSE = (yi − ỹi )2 (5)
n i=1
 4

Number of epoch 100

Activation function sigmoid
Nbre neuron in input layer 5
Nbre neuron in hidden layer1 10
Nbre neuron in hidden layer2 8
Nbre neuron in out layer1 1
Nbre WS 5 seconds

TABLE II: MLP parameters

connected to the Ryu controller through the OpenFlow1.3. H1

is assumed to be the source while H4 is the destination. A
path needs to be established between H1 and H4 to support
bandwidth-sensitive flows. Besides, all link capacities are fixed
at 10Mb/s. In the controller, the MLP model is implemented
over the TensorFlow plateform [10]. It is an open-source
library for machine learning developed by the Google brain
Fig. 2: The structure of MLP team.
In order to evaluate the impact of the PFLR algorithm on
MLP Model X H1 H2 MSE the network performance, we adopt the root-mean-square
1 5 12 - 1.98
2 5 8 8 1.95
deviation (RMSD) metric as follows:
3 5 10 8 1.87 s
1X
4 5 12 8 1.87 σ= (bw(li ) − bw(lj ))2 (6)
n
TABLE I: Comparative Study of various MLP models i6=j

where n is the number of links in the network and bw(li )

where: yi is predicted value and ỹi is actual value.
The choice of our model is not arbitrary. The table (I) depicts
a comparative study between different models. Clearly, the
introduction of a second hidden layer helps to reduce the MSE.
Moreover, increasing the number of neurons in the first hidden
layer has a significant impact on the resulting MSE. However,
beyond 10 neurons in the first hidden layer seems to not have
further impact on the MSE. Therefore, we fix the number of
neurons in our model as follows: (X = 5, H1 = 10, H2 =
8, O = 1). Accordingly, the MLP parameters are defined in
the table II.
V. PFLR ANALYSIS AND CRITICS
is the available bandwidth in the link li .
The root-mean-square deviation reflects the achievement of the
load balancing among a network. Defined as the square of the
variance, this metric provides information on the bandwidth
oscillation among the overall links of the network.
A. Results
This experimental test aims to evaluate the impact of intro-
ducing DL in routing process. The simulation test is repeated
10 times. As shown in Fig. 4, the proposed solution performs
better than the classical routing algorithm in terms of resource
utilization. Indeed, the root-mean-square deviation of resource
utilization reaches over 16 Mbps for non intelligent routing.
It goes around 10 Mbps when prediction is used. Obtained
results (Fig 4) ratify results of parallel researches. Obviously,
DL improves the overall network performance. Indeed, the
resource utilization is optimized over the time.
However, as the number of switches increases, the man-
agement of the prediction process becomes more and more
laborious which probably burdens the controller. Moreover,
computation time becomes harder due to the growth of the
number of links. The scalability issue must be focused in
the PFLR algorithm to make it suitable for application in
large-scale networks such as SD-WAN. In the next section,
a scalable release of the PFLR is presented.

VI. S CALABLE P REDICTING OF F UTURE L OAD - BASED

Fig. 3: Network topology.
In this section, we discuss the performance of the PFLR
algorithm following the results of experimental tests. Tests
are deployed on Ryu controller [8] and Mininet [9]. The
network topology is shown in Fig. 3 and consists of 5 switches
ROUTING : SPFLR
A. General concept
The basic idea of SPFLR algorithm (scalable Predicting
of Future Load-based Routing) is to forecast the available
bandwidth of end-to-end paths instead of predicting available

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 4

on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 4: Optimization of the
resource utilization (RU) in
PFLR
Fig. 5: Optimization of the
resource utilization (RU) in
SPFLR
resources on all links from the network. First, all feasible paths
from a source to a destination are selected. Then, only those
with at least 40% of available resources are considered in
remaining steps of the algorithm. The available bandwidth on
each link belonging to a path from the selected set is requested.
Received data is not saved but used to compute the available
bandwidth of the corresponding path using the equation 7:
Bw(P, t) = min bw(li , t)
li ∈P
Where P is a path, li is a link belonging to P and bw(li , t) is
the available bandwidth on link li at t. The set of bw(P, t − i),
∀0 ≤ i ≤ n are saved than used to predict bw(P, t + 1), as it
is done with PFLR.
B. Results
As shown in Fig 5, SPFLR algorithm performs better than
PFLR algorithm. Indeed, all paths in the network are estab-
lished with respect to bandwidth requirements while resources
reservation is done in a fair way. This can contribute to the
efficiency of the network resource management. Moreover, the
number of threats used to predict the available bandwidth is
reduced significantly since only a subset of paths between
a source and a destination is considered during the predic-
tion process. As a result, the number of monitored links is
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 5
5
Algorithm 2: Scalable Predicting of Future Load-based
Routing (SPFLR)
Input :
The network topology and all residual link
capacities.
The path requests between different
ingress-egress pairs.
Output : Routed paths through the network.
Algorithm:
1) select a set of paths P that connects a source to a
destination
2) For each path pi ∈ P
a) compute bandwidth utilization Bw(pi ):
Bw(pi ) = min ( bwij ) ∀ eji ∈ pi
3) select a subset of paths P̂ ⊆ P that has available bw
more than 40%
4) for each path pi ∈ P̂ :
a) predict future bandwidth utilization Bw(pi , t + 1)
of pi
b) Compute the reciprocal of available BW using
the following equation:
(1 − α) α
RBW (pi ) = +
Bw(pi , t) Bw(pi , t + 1)
where α = (prediction weight).
c) reroute flows through the path
p∗ = min RBW (pi )
pi ∈P̂
5) Repeat previous steps each WS
systematically decreased and therefore the controller is less
overloaded.
As for example, Given a network G=(V,E) where kV k=5
and kEk=6 denote the set of nodes and the set of links,
respectively, the algorithm of PFLR uses 6 MLP(one for each
link) to predict the future available bandwidth. The complexity
of PFLR is equal to O(kEk + W S(kEk + O(Dij))), where
O(Dij) is the complexity of the Dijkstra algorithm and it
(7) is equal to (O(kEk+kV k log kV k). However, SPFLR has a
complexity of O(kEk2 log(kEk)) and uses only 4 MLP since
there are only 4 paths between source s1 and the destination s5
(1-2-3-5;1-2-4-5;1-4-5;1-4-2-3-5). Furthermore, the paths from
previous subset with less than 40% of bandwidth availability
are excluded from the remaining process. This solution can
make our algorithm scalable in Very large-Scale Networks
(VLSN) such as SD-WAN.
VII. C ONCLUSION
Obviously, SDN is the most marking evolution in network
architectures. It improves efficiently network performance
through the introduction of programmability, flexibility and
fine-grained network control. This efficiency can be ratified
by the combination of intelligence with SDN capabilities.
In this way, this paper proposes a scalable intelligent routing
algorithm which improves QoS-aware path establishment in
on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 6

SDN networks. Mainly, it predicts the future available band-

width in paths scope instead of links scope. Future bandwidth
values in each path are predicted through the application of a
per-path MLP model. SPFLR uses immediate results to reroute
flows through the best path without need to run the Dijkstra
algorithm.
The integration of DL in routing algorithm performs better
than classical routing in terms of the resource utilization as
shown in this paper. The most problem of DL is the complexity
of its algorithms which can be avoided particularly in SDN
using a powerful controller or a distributed architecture of
collaborating controllers. This issue will be pointed out in
future work.

R EFERENCES
[1] Open networking foundation. https://www.opennetworking.org/.
[2] Mehdi KHASHEI, Mehdi et BIJARI. A novel hybridization of artificial
neural networks and arima models for time series forecasting. Applied
Soft Computing, 11(2):2664–2675, 2011.
[3] Andreas TURKY, Abutaleb Abdelmohdi et MITSCHELE-THIEL. Use
of load prediction mechanism for dynamic routing optimization. IEEE
Symposium on Computers and Communications, pages 782–786, 2009.
[4] AUJLA Gagangeet Singh-KUMAR Neeraj et al JINDAL, Anish. Seda-
tive: Sdn-enabled deep learning architecture for network traffic control
in vehicular cyber-physical systems. IEEE Network, 32(6):66–73, 2018.
[5] FADLULLAH Zubair Md-MAO Bomin et al TANG, Fengxiao. An
intelligent traffic load prediction-based adaptive channel assignment
algorithm in sdn-iot: A deep learning approach. IEEE Internet of Things
Journal, 5(6):5141–5154, 2018.
[6] LAN Julong GUO-Zehua et al. YU, Changhe. Drom: Optimizing the
routing in software-defined networks with deep reinforcement learning.
IEEE Access, 6:64533–64539, 2018.
[7] MARCHESE Mario et MONGELLI Maurizio. CELLO, Marco. On the
qos estimation in an openflow network: The packet loss case. IEEE
Communications Letters, 20(3):554–557, 2016.
[8] Ryu sdn framework. https://osrg.github.io/ryu/.
[9] Mininet. http://mininet.org/.
[10] Tensorflow. https://www.tensorflow.org/.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITE DE SOUSSE. Downloaded 6

View publication stats on December 23,2020 at 09:08:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.