Dynamic Controller Provisioning in Software Defined Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software Defined Networking (SDN) has emerged as a new paradigm that offers the programmability required to dynamically configure and control a network. A traditional SDN implementation relies on a logically centralized controller that runs the control plane. However, in a large-scale WAN deployment, this rudimentary centralized approach has several limitations related to performance and scalability. To address these issues, recent proposals have advocated deploying multiple controllers that work cooperatively to control a network. Nonetheless, this approach drags in an interesting problem, which we call the Dynamic Controller Provisioning Problem (DCPP). DCPP dynamically adapts the number of controllers and their locations with changing network conditions, in order to minimize flow setup time and communication overhead. In this paper, we propose a framework for deploying multiple controllers within an WAN. Our framework dynamically adjusts the number of active controllers and delegates each controller with a subset of Openflow switches according to network dynamics while ensuring minimal flow setup time and communication overhead. To this end, we formulate the optimal controller provisioning problem as an Integer Linear Program (ILP) and propose two heuristics to solve it. Simulation results show that our solution minimizes flow setup time while incurring very low communication overhead.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".