VNF and CNF Placement in 5G: Recent Advances and Future Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing demand for openness, scalability, and granularity, mobile network function virtualization (NFV) has emerged as a key enabler for the most of mobile network operators. NFV decouples network functions from hardware devices. This decoupling allows network services, called Virtualized Network Functions (VNFs), to be hosted on commodity hardware which simplifies and enhances service deployment and management for providers, improves flexibility, and leads to efficient and scalable resource usage, and lower costs. The proper placement of VNFs in the hosting infrastructures is one of the main technical challenges. This placement significantly influences the network’s performance, reliability, and operating costs. The VNF placement is NP-Hard. Therefore, there is a need for placement methods that can cope with the complexity of the problem and find appropriate solutions in a reasonable duration. The primary purpose of this study is to provide a taxonomy of optimization techniques used to tackle the VNF placement problems. We classify the studied papers based on performance metrics, methods, algorithms, and environment. Virtualization is not limited to simply replacing physical machines with virtual machines or VNFs, but may also include micro-services, containers, and cloud-native systems. In this context, the second part of our article focuses on the placement of Containers Network Functions (CNFs) in edge/fog computing. Many issues have been considered as traffic congestion, resource utilization, energy consumption, performance degradation, etc. For each matter, various solutions are proposed through different surveys and research papers in which each one addresses the placement problem in a specific manner by suggesting single objective or multi-objective methods based on different types of algorithms such as heuristic, meta-heuristic, and machine learning algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".