Skip to main content


Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen

01.06.2011 | Ausgabe 5-6/2011

Annals of Telecommunications 5-6/2011

Virtual networks: isolation, performance, and trends

Natalia C. Fernandes, Marcelo D. D. Moreira, Igor M. Moraes, Lyno Henrique G. Ferraz, Rodrigo S. Couto, Hugo E. T. Carvalho, Miguel Elias M. Campista, Luís Henrique M. K. Costa, Otto Carlos M. B. Duarte
Wichtige Hinweise
This work was supported by CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FUJB, FINEP, and FUNTTEL.


Currently, there is a strong effort of the research community in rethinking the Internet architecture to cope with its current limitations and support new requirements. Many researchers conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all of the user and network provider needs and thus advocate for a pluralist network architecture, which allows the coexistence of different protocol stacks running at the same time over the same physical substrate. In this paper, we investigate the advantages and limitations of the virtualization technologies for creating a pluralist environment for the Future Internet. We analyze two types of virtualization techniques, which provide multiple operating systems running on the same hardware, represented by Xen, or multiple network flows on the same switch, represented by OpenFlow. First, we define the functionalities needed by a Future Internet virtual network architecture and how Xen and OpenFlow provide them. We then analyze Xen and OpenFlow in terms of network programmability, processing, forwarding, control, and scalability. Finally, we carry out experiments with Xen and OpenFlow network prototypes, identifying the overhead incurred by each virtualization tool by comparing it with native Linux. Our experiments show that OpenFlow switch forwards packets as well as native Linux, achieving similar high forwarding rates. On the other hand, we observe that the high complexity involving Xen virtual machine packet forwarding limits the achievable packet rates. There is a clear trade-off between flexibility and performance, but we conclude that both Xen and OpenFlow are suitable platforms for network virtualization.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5-6/2011

Annals of Telecommunications 5-6/2011 Zur Ausgabe