An SDN-Based CDN/ISP Collaboration Architecture for Managing High-Volume Flows
Abstract
The collaboration of Internet service providers (ISPs) and content distribution network (CDN) providers was shown to be beneficial for both parties in a number of recent works. Influencing CDN edge server (surrogate) selection allows the ISP to manage the rising amount of traffic emanating from CDNs to reduce the operational expenditures (OPEX) of his infrastructure, e.g., by preventing peered traffic. At the same time, including the ISP's hidden network knowledge in the surrogate selection process influences the quality of service a CDN provider can deliver positively. As a large amount of CDN traffic is video-on-demand traffic, this paper investigates the topic of CDN/ISP collaboration from a perspective of high-volume long-living flows. These types of flows are hardly manageable with state-of-the-art Dynamic Name Service (DNS)-based redirection, as a reassignment of flows during the session is difficult to achieve. Consequently, varying load of surrogates caused by flash crowds and congestion events in the ISP's network are hard to compensate. This paper presents a novel approach promoting ISP and CDN collaboration based on a minimal deployment of software-defined networking switches in the ISP's network. The approach complements standard DNS-based redirection by allowing for a migration of high-volume flows between surrogates in the backend even if the communication has state information, such as Hyper Text Transfer Protocol sessions. In addition to a proof-of-concept, the evaluation identifies factors influencing performance and shows large performance increases when compared to standard DNS-based redirection.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Request redirection mechanism can be based either on DNS unicast or on combination of DNS and anycast for assignment of most nearby server to clients.
“The request redirection mechanism can be based either on Domain Name System (DNS) unicast or on a combination of DNS and anycast for assignment of the most nearby server to the clients [116].”
From QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey (2020) · cites this paper as [116]
SDN can provide an opportunity to ISPs to assist OTTP for optimal selection of CDN/SS considering their network.
“In this case, SDN can provide an opportunity to the ISPs to assist OTTP for the optimal selection of a CDN/SS considering their network [116].”
From QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey (2020) · cites this paper as [116]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A survey on content-centric technologies for the current Internet: CDN and P2P solutions
Passarella, A. (2012) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2011.10.005 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
QoE Management of Multimedia Streaming Services in Future Networks: A Tutorial and Survey
Barakabitze, A. A., Barman, N., Ahmad, A., Zadtootaghaj, S., Sun, L., Martini, M. G., & Atzori, L. (2020) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2019.2958784 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Challenges of future multimedia QoE monitoring for internet service providers
Robitza, W., Ahmad, A., Kara, P. A., Atzori, L., Martini, M. G., Raake, A., & Sun, L. (2017) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-017-4870-z · Cited by 57 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wichtlhuber, M., Reinecke, R., & Hausheer, D.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Darmstadt (DE)
- Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-60
- ISSN
- 1932-4537 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069672109
- Cited by
- 86
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 16.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management (publishedVersion)
- TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (acceptedVersion)
- TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Union
- German DFG
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Caching and Content Delivery
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software-Defined Networks and 5G
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Traffic and Congestion Control
- Keywords
- software-defined networking, content delivery networks, surrogate selection, flow migration, flash crowds, network congestion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review