2019 19th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies
(ISCIT)
Design of SDN concept for 5G Access Network
Sanhapit Phatratipakorn
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Mahidol University
25/25 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Phuttamonthon,
Nakornpathom 73170, Thailand
Email : sanhapit.pha@student.mahidol.ac.th
Abstract—Nowadays, the mobile cellular network is
approaching the fifth generation "5G" to satisfy massive
demands. Software Defined Network (SDN) is one of the
candidate technologies that is deployed. SDN reduces the
dispensable transmission path by splitting it into control path
and data path. In this work, we deploy a number of SDN
topologies in dense traffic area, Central Bangkok. The results
are shown in terms of latency, failure tolerance and bandwidth
allocation.
Keywords—Radio access network, Software defined
networking, Network topology, 5G mobile communication
I. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, mobile cellular networks are one of an
important parts of everyone’s lives. Almost 9 billion mobile
devices and connections have increased since 2016.
Furthermore, mobile data traffic has grown 17 times over
the past 5 years [1]. This trend shows that the current
generation of mobile cellular network 4G will not be
adequate for the incoming demand. As a result, the network
will be evolved into the next generation “5G”.
The 5G evolution focuses on the greater data
transmission rate, faster latency, more tolerance, and better
cost efficiency. One of 5G requirement is to have the
network latency less than 1 ms. To support this, SDN
(Software Define Network) architecture is introduced for 5G
access network for better latency[2-4]. Since SDN concept
is to split control and user planes[5], data can travel to the
destination directly, through the user plane not via
controller.
In addition to the network architecture, network
topology also influences network latency. There are a
number of well-known network topologies. For example,
bus, star, tree, ring and mesh[6]. Ring and mesh are widely
used because of failure tolerance. Ring is minimal and
simple. Nodes are connected only 2 nodes nearby[6], so
there are many ports for further use. However, the cons are
lower speed and less tolerance. In contrast, mesh or torus
topology has many degrees for connections. There are 4
ports in a node that are used to connected to other nodes in
2D torus[7]. This topology is great for latency and failure
tolerance because of its dedicated links[8].
There are further studies of the topologies in terms of
distance. [9-10] Researchers propose that average shortest
distance of a topology can present to its latency. Here, the
978-1-7281-5009-3/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE 377
Pongsatorn Sedtheetorn
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Mahidol University
25/25 Phuttamonthon 4 Road, Salaya, Phuttamonthon,
Nakornpathom 73170, Thailand
Email : pongsatorn.sed@mahidol.edu
graph theory is applied. Nodes and links are related to
vertices and edges respectively.
In this work, we present a variation of split-ring
topology that compromises between latency and cost.
Motivated by splitting the planes, traditional ring is spitted
into small rings so called split-ring. Furthermore, we also
present 12 different formations of split-ring. Then, we
calculate average shortest distance according to [9-10]
compare to simulation's latency. In the last section we will
present another advantage of split-ring which are failure
tolerance and bandwidth allocation. The probability of
switches outage will be shown. Moreover, bandwidth
allocation is also shown by result of simulation. The
calculation method and result data can be used as a
guideline for future selection the most applicable network
topology in realistic works.
In the next section, we describe scope and assumption of
this work. In section 3, the 12 formations of split-ring are
explained. Then, the results are shown and compared by
charts. Conclusion is drawn in section 4.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
We focus our study in high population area, because it
leads to more dense traffic which requires 5G deployment.
So, we choose Central Bangkok as considered area[11]. By
deployment of 28 GHz, it requires about 300 access
points[12] (in later section, we uses base station instead of
access point). Therefore, our expected topologies will have
at least 300 ports connected to base station(in later section,
we call ports). The assumptions in these works are that all
switches have unlimited buffer and all links weight equal to
1 hop. Moreover, a switch has 16 ports, where a port can be
connected to either base station or another. We define
"shortest distance" as "distance".
We adapt vertices and edges from the graph theory to
calculate average distance of topologies. So, the vertices and
edges refer to switches and links respectively.
sw
1
 d (vi , v j ) Pi Pj
n ( n − 1) i ≠ j
(1)
The equation is used to calculate average distance, here
n is overall ports that be used to connect to base station,
d ( v i , v j ) is distance from switch i to switch j , and Pi Pj
are ports use to connected to base station at each switch. We
 2019 19th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies
(ISCIT)

start calculating 2 traditional topologies, ring and 2D torus IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
(or called just torus interchangeably). We import the formations of topologies data to
For the probability of switch outage, we use the MATLAB[13]. The software has a functionality to calculate
combinations (n select k). We assume the chance that each the distance. Then, the average distances could be calculated
link will be failed is equally. Where n is number of links in by the above equation.
each formation, and we choose 2 links failed. So, k equals 2. We also take the formations of topology into a
Afterward, we got number of double-link fail formats. simulation. Mininet [14] and OpenDaylight [15] are famous
unlicensed software. Mininet can simulate SDN
n n! environment such as switches, controllers, and links. Base
cr = (2) on OpenDaylight, controller is set to be remote. After
( n − r )! r! installation and setting up, we ping from each base stations
to another base station with 64 bytes packet 100 times and
III. DESIGNED TOPOLOGIES the average the duration. As a result, we get a round trip
The split-ring composed of a group of small rings time that refers to the latency.
connected together, so we name the structures as small ring Other parameters are also included for calculation. Ports
and main ring as shown in Fig. 1. and links refer to physical infrastructure that mobile
operators have and will deploy SDN.
Small Small On the one hand, torus topology has the best average
Ring Ring
distance and round trip time, which are 2.40 hops and
Main Ring 0.58076 ms respectively. So it is at the leftmost position in
the graph as shown in Fig.2. On the other hand, ring
topology is at the rightmost because of the worst average
Small Small distance and round trip time. Its average distance and round
Ring Ring
trip time are 5.51 hops and 0.87 ms respectively.
Fig.1 . The Split-Ring All of split-rings result are shown in the middle of the
graph. There are small deviations because different class,
but trend of the graph shows positive relationship. The
We offer 12 formations of split-ring topology. The 6_6_5_5 formation has the best latency of split ring. It has
formations are branched into 3 classes, named equal- only 3.54 hops in average distance and 0.580955 ms in
distributed, unequal-distributed , and mix torus (Table I). round trip time. The round trip time is close to torus's result.
We use number format to represent the number of switch in There are 22 switches as same as traditional ring, but only 4
each small rings. For example, 6_6_6_6 means 6 switches in more links are added. Average distance and round trip time
small rings and there are 4 small rings. In later section, we decrease by 33.75 percent and 35.74 percent respectively.
may also use 6x4 instead of 6_6_6_6 . As a result, the average distances of 12 formations
Table I. Classification of Split-Ring
decrease from the traditional ring topology on average 33.66
Equal-Distributed Unequal-Distributed Mix Torus percent. The round trip time decreases on average 22.66
3_3_3_3_3_3_3_3 6_6_5_5 1 torus percent when compare to the tradition ring.
8_8_8 6_6_6_4 2 torus The round trip time will be decreased because of adding
4_4_4_4_4_4 8_7_7 3 torus more links. In Fig.3, we will group the formations by
6_6_6_6 8_8_6 4 torus number of switches, because the round trip time will be
huge when packet travels to other small rings or other
The equal-distributed is good a calculation example for switches. There are 2 groups, 22 switches and 24 switches.
split-ring. There are 24 switches in network which are In 22 switches group, we observe that round trip time of
equally divided into small rings. However, there are too 6_6_5_5 formation is 0.58 ms and round trip time of
many ports than needed. We improve the class that result in 6_6_6_4 formation is 0.66 ms. Also, round trip time of
2 other classes. 8_8_6 and 8_7_7 are 0.63 ms and 0.58 ms respectively. We
The first improvement, we remove two switches to make
number of ports closer to 300. So, the 22 switches are
unequally-distributed into small rings. We name it "unequal- 0.9

distributed". ring
0.85
Another improvement is the mix torus. The excessive
Round Trip Time (ms)

4x6
ports are used to connect to other switches instead. We 0.8

3x8
adapt 6_6_6_6 formation because it is the best latency in the 0.75 1torus
equal-distributed class. We put this idea in 1, 2, 3 and 4 3torus
8x3
0.7
small rings respectively. For example, 1 torus, we connect 6 6x4
6664
nodes in torus style and leave other small rings as a 0.65
4torus 886
conventional 6-ring connection. 0.6
torus 2torus
Next section, we will use (1) to find the average distance 877
of formations, use (2) for probability of switches failure, and 0.55
2 2.5 3
6655
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
simulate the formations.
Average Distance (hop)
Fig.2 . Average Distance vs Round Trip Time

378
 2019 19th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies
(ISCIT)

In addition to above paragraphs, the mix torus is more

0.9
Ring advantageous than the equal-distributed in term of failure
0.85
22 sw tolerance and bandwidth allocation. We shown the data only
Round Trip Time (ms)

0.8 4x6 the unequal-distributed and mix torus in Table. II, since
3x8 24 sw their results are likely to be more useful in practice.
0.75 1torus
8x3
3torus
According to the performance of formations in previous
0.7
886 6x4
4torus section, we will consider in physical characteristics, such as
6664
0.65
the number of links and ports. We represent radar charts, for
0.6
877
the mix torus. Radar chart is an excellent choice to compare
6655
0.55 many parameters. However, the chart is clear for a small
20 25 30 35 40
group of data series. The chart has a limitation that all axis
Number of Links (links) scales are the same, so we rescale the data by [0,1] method.
Ports, links and round trip time are shown in charts.
In Fig.4, we use 24 switches. Overall ports are also
Fig.3. Number of Links vs Round Trip Time same. If we want lower round trip time (or latency). The
ports are allocated to be links to large amount. As a result,
imply that, removing 2 switches from formations, it is better there are small quantity of base station ports left. On the
to remove 1 switch from 2 different small rings than to other hand, we want to have huge number of ports, because
remove 2 switches from 1 small ring. we have smaller number of links, the round trip time will be
In 24 switches group, it consists of equal-distributed and poor.
mix torus class. Two classes have similar round trip time, Chart of mix torus is the great example of the situation
but equal-distributed uses less links than the another. above. The 1 torus line has the highest number of ports and
However, mix torus have benefit in failure tolerance and least number of links which result in longest round trip time.
bandwidth allocation that will be discuss later. On the other hand, 2 torus, 3 torus and 4 torus lines have
We calculate the probability of switch outage. In ring lesser ports. So, there are more ports for links. As a result,
topology, there are at least 2 links connected to other round trip time will be shorter.
switches, so single-link fail can't make the switch outage, it To design an access network, there are some goals and
only makes performance degraded because there is one link conditions to satisfy, which are generally number of ports
left for communication. So, we consider in double-links fail and round trip time. For example, if access network needs a
that can make the switch outage. huge number of ports. Then the 1 torus formation should be
There are 22 links in normal ring, so there are 231 considered. Also, its round trip time will be considered later.
formats of double-link failure. Moreover, each format can If the round trip time is already satisfy the network
make at least a switch outage. The worst case is that the requirement, it is an answer. In contrast, network needs to
failure separates the ring into 11 switches linear topology. have good round trip time. The 4 torus is a better choice.
In split-ring, there are 2 ways of double-link fail i.e. However, the 2 torus or 3 torus could be selected instead if
double-links fail in same small ring and double-links fail in more ports are needed.
main ring. Nevertheless, torus style connection has more
than 2 links for each switch. So, double-links failure will not V. CONCLUSION
cause network separation. In summary, all split-ring can According to the paper we have presented the
decrease the probability from 100%. The probability of importance of SDN architecture to the 5G access network.
equal-distributed is range from 7.25% to 18.83%. The Traditional topologies such as ring and torus topology are
unequal-distributed can decreases more than 80%. extreme topologies. So, we try to suggest the topologies of
Furthermore, 4 small rings decreases the probability more switch's connection, "Split-ring" .A name "Split-ring" comes
than 3 small rings. Moreover, mix torus the probability from method that split traditional ring into small rings.
starts at 7.31% and be only 0.51% in 4 torus formation. In this paper, we calculate average distance in
Another useful function of Mininet is "iperf" over TCP MATLAB. We also get round trip time and bandwidth from
links. "iperf" is used to check bandwidth over Transmission simulation in Mininet. All of split-ring can generate average
Control Protocol. The links cannot be set up as commercial distance , round trip time, failure tolerance and bandwidth
fiber optic standard e.g. 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps. It can be set as allocation between the 2 traditional topologies. Relationship
100 Mbps bandwidth. We cannot make a realistic between average distance and round trip time are direct
simulation, but we can make only a comparative simulation.
As a result, traditional ring average bandwidth is 22.64 Table II. Formations Performance
Mbps and torus has 30.01 Mbps. On the other hand, split-
ring formations have average bandwidth in range of 23.93 to Formation Average Round Probability (%) Bandwidth
Distance Trip Time (Mbps)
30.83 Mbps. Moreover, 6 switches split rings are greater (ms)
(hops)
than 8 switches split-ring cause of bandwidth allocation. 6_6_6_4 3.61 0.66 11.38 30.83
Furthermore, the average bandwidth of equal-distributed is 6_6_5_5 3.54 0.58 11.14 30.01
24.58 Mbps which is less than the average bandwidth of mix 8_7_7 3.73 0.58 18 26.44
torus, 28.71 Mbps. In generally, link's bandwidth is 8_8_6 3.79 0.63 18.33 28.94
allocated for every switch in its ring. When member in a 1 torus 3.65 0.74 7.31 29.73
2 torus 3.49 0.60 4.27 27.93
ring is less, bandwidth allocation will be greater.
3 torus 3.32 0.70 2.1 28.03
4 torus 3.16 0.67 0.51 29.18

379
 2019 19th International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies
(ISCIT)

[13] MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2018b., The MathWorks,

Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States, 2018
ports [14] Lantz B., Mininet. ON.lab, Stanford.
0.8 1torus [15] OpenDaylight 0.4.4-Beryllium-SR4., Linux Foundation, San
Francisco, California, Feb 2016
0.6 2torus
0.4 3torus
0.2 4torus
0

rtt links

Fig.4. Radar Chart of Mix Torus Class

proportional which is shown the by graph's trend. However,

split-rings have a small deviation cause of different
formations. In addition, base station ports, number of links ,
failure tolerance, and bandwidth are also shown in this
work. The equal-distributed class is in the middle. The
unequal-distributed that remove some excessive switches
can improve the round trip time or latency. On the other
hand, the improvement by mix torus style can be beneficial
in term of failure tolerance and bandwidth allocation. In
addition to the performances, we will consider in physical
characteristic that how many links and ports needed. They
are in trade-off condition, more links less ports.
It is difficult to generalize the best topology, because
each topology has its own advantages and disadvantages. In
realistic work, there are some goals and conditions for
access network. It is very important that to choose the most
suitable topology for each situation. This work also suggests
some topology and guideline for calculating other
topologies.
REFERENCES
[1] Cisco., “Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic
Forecast Update, 2016–2022 White Paper” , 18 February 2019.
[2] NTT DOCOMO., "DOCOMO 5G White Paper",2014
[3] AT&T Business., " The dawn of the 5G world"
[4] HUAWEI Technologies., " 5G Network Architecture A High-Level
Perspective",2016
[5] Bannour, F., Souihi, S. and Mellouk, A. (2018). Distributed SDN
Control: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challenges. IEEE Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, vol.20, no.8, pp.333-354.
[6] Pandya, K., "Network Structure or Topology," International
Journal of Advance Research in Computer Science and Management
Studies, vol.1, no.2, Jul. pp.22-27.
[7] J. L. Kalb and D. S. Lee, Network topology analysis, Sandia National
Laboratories, 2008.
[8] Bratt Meador, "A Survey of Computer Network Topology and
Analysis Examples," Computer science and Engineering,
Washington University, 24 Nov 2008.
[9] Cherkasova, L., Kotov, V. and Rikicki, T. "Evaluation of network
topologies," Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Technical Publications
Dept, Palo Alto, California, Jul 1995.

[10] Cherkasova, L., Kotov, V. and Rokicki, T. "Evaluation and design of

high-performance network topologies," Hewlett-Packard
Laboratories, Technical Publications Dept, Palo Alto, California,
Mar 1995.
[11] Strategy and Evaluation Department. Statistics of Bangkok 2014.
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, pp.9-14.
[12] M.-D. Kim, J. Liang, H.-K. Kwon, and J. Lee, “Path loss
measurement at indoor commercial areas using 28GHz channel
sounding system,” International Conference on Advanced
Communication Technology (ICACT) 17th , Jul 2015.

380