> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 1

NFV/SDN-based Mobile Networks

Architectures for IoT Services & Applications
Alexander Galvis, Juan F. Botero and Lus A. Fletscher, Members, IEEE

supports and justifies its development. In fact, Gartner's 2014

Abstract Internet of Things (IoT) enables natural
communication between multiple devices over a ubiquitous
platform opening new opportunities for innovation in different
fields. This survey paper addresses several technological
challenges faced by the architecture that will support the new IoT
services and applications in a mobile 5G environment,
highlighting the key role that Software Defined Networking
(SDN) and Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) could play in
this evolutive environment. On this emerging and hot topic, this
paper presents a large review of the existing work and the main
expected challenges from a perspective of both academy and
industry.
Index Terms Internet of things, network function
virtualization, 5G, mobile network, software defined networking.
I. INTRODUCTION
Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies locates IoT in the
peak of inflated expectations [1] but industry is aware that
with the currently deployed technologies it will be impossible
to overcome the challenges imposed by IoT.
The basic idea of IoT is the pervasive presence around us of
a variety of things or objects (such as Radio-Frequency
IDentification (RFID) tags, sensors, actuators, mobile phones,
cars, transport infrastructure, appliances, etc.), which, through
unique addressing schemes, are able to interact with each
other and cooperate with their neighbors to reach common
goals [2]. In that way, IoT is an ecosystem of physical objects
capable to share information and even make decisions without
human intervention in an environment where enabling
technologies evolution is driven by applications desirable to
users/stakeholders and a viable marketplace with specific
needs and requirements [3]. The roadmap shown in Fig. 1

T HIS section briefly describes the three main driven

technologies supporting the content of this survey paper
and the relationship among them: IoT, SDN/NFV and 5G
describes how the IoT ecosystem is likely to evolve in the
coming years and what will be needed to achieve IoT
Roadmap goals.
Mobile Networks. This general scope includes a vision from
academia and industry with emphasis in drivers, enablers,
benefits and strategies to merge these concepts, paradigms and
technologies. Actually, each of these concepts can be analyzed
separately and implemented independently of the others, but
the main goal here is to show how and why integrating them
into a single architecture empowers network operators and
service providers both in the technical and commercial field.
Section I is an introduction to the four technologies
mentioned (IoT, SDN, NFV and 5G). The convergence of
SDN/NFV and modern mobile networks is discussed in
Section II. In turn, Section III discusses the roll of SDN/NFV
in the definition of architectures for IoT applications and
services and how these four technologies work together to
create an efficient, cost effective and scalable environment for
IoT concept implementation. Finally, Section IV summarizes Fig. 1. IoT Roadmap [2]
some conclusions on the subject treated.
A. Internet of Things (IoT) In [2], authors describe the IoT paradigm as a result of the
convergence of different visions, which are explained in
IoT is an idea that evolved into a concept and paradigm detail. Application domains and relevant major scenarios are
over the past 16 years. Today, IoT is a hot topic because the presented too as a vision of the first real evolution of the
technology that enables the interconnection of things in the Internet, giving some example testbeds for each smart
Internet could be currently available and there is a market that environment application domain identified. In addition, a
conceptual IoT framework with Cloud Computing at the
This paper was submitted on March 15, 2017, to the IEEE Transactions on
Network and Service Management, special issue on Advances in Management
center is presented and a model of end-to-end interaction
of Softwarized Networks. between various stakeholders in Cloud centric IoT framework
A. Galvis, J. F. Botero and L. A. Fletscher are with the Engineering is proposed to overcome the complexity related to developing
Faculty, University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. ({alexander.galvisq ; IoT applications using low-level Cloud programming models
juanf.botero ; luis.fletscher}@udea.edu.co.)
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
and interfaces, reducing the time and cost involved in
engineering IoT applications [2].
Standardization and normalization processes are also taking
place within the ITU [4], IETF [5], the European Union [6,7]
and other organizations and institutions worldwide.
Information and descriptions about new horizons for the IoT,
current research, innovation, deployments of IoT, application
scenarios, pilots, security and privacy issues, current
challenges, open issues, trends and real state of the IoT
ecosystem can be found in [8].
Over the years, with the development of new technologies
and market evolution, that vision of the IoT ecosystem has
expanded considerably. Application of IoT in different
scenarios will have deep implications, not only regarding how
new technology should be developed, but also in how value
chains and business models will be adapted to the ecosystem
to ensure sustainability and profitability while the user needs
are met.
Nine IoT service sectors are identified in [3]: buildings,
energy, consumer & home, healthcare & life science,
industrial, transportation, retail, security/public safety and IT
& networks. However, as Gartner shows in [1], IoT is still
maturing and there are a number of factors that limit its
development and implementation. Most relevant factors are
identified in [3]. No accelerated use and further development
of IoT reference architectures like Architecture Reference
Model (ARM) of the project IoT-A [10], its one of the most
limiting factors for the development of IoT. Many
architectural models have been proposed and each involves
the application of specific technologies, but all of them start
from the same basic model presented in Fig. 2, which
basically describes the vision of the industry [11].
Fig. 2. Functional (above) and product (below) views of the emerging IoT
architecture [11]
The three core building blocks form the technology
backbone of the IoT and enable Everything as a Service
(XaaS): sensors and actuators, embedded processing,
connectivity and the cloud are examined in [11]. In addition,
authors discuss the impact of IoT and analyze the options for
telcos in the value chain for IoT solutions, taking into account
that a solution is valuable to the end consumer if it is useful,
usable and desirable, a perfect fusion of design, engineering
2
and marketing. A regulatory framework for addressing the
challenge of balancing power, rights and interests in the IoT is
also presented.
B. Network Functions Virtualization (NFV)
Virtualization is not a new technology or trend. Many years
ago, the idea of virtualize things was applied in computing and
informatics, but the concept of virtualization have been
extended to network elements, and now, to network functions.
A review of the evolution of the network virtualization
concept is presented in [12], where a description of Virtual
Local Area Networks (VLANs), Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs), active/programmable networks and overlay networks
is provided as introduction to Network Virtualization
Environment (NVE) and its components (business model and
architecture). A short review of main projects on this topic
until 2009 can also be found in [12], identifying key issues
and open research challenges at that date. The NVE shown in
Fig. 3 propound principles of coexistence, recursion,
inheritance and revisitation. Design criteria for Network
Virtualization are defined: Flexibility, manageability,
scalability, isolation, stability and convergence,
programmability, heterogeneity and legacy support.
Fig. 3. Network Virtualization Environment [12]
The ultimate vision of virtualization allows for virtualized
network functions (VNFs), which run in the cloud to
maximize efficiency and minimize cost. The NFV concept
appears by first time in October 2012 in a white paper
published by the Network Functions Virtualization Industry
Specification Group (NFV-ISG) at ETSI, which says that NFV
aims to address problems by leveraging standard IT
virtualization technology to consolidate many network
equipment types onto industry standard high volume servers,
switches and storage, which could be located in datacenters,
network nodes and in the end user premises [13]. This means
that practically every function performed in the network can
be implemented by NFV (switching, routing, remote access
servers, firewalls, deep packet inspection, baseband processing
and scheduling, among many others). Fig. 4 depicts the
evolving NFV architecture [14].
The proposal for Virtual Network Functions (VNFs) is to
run on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) hardware. The
virtualization layer shown in Fig. 4 is a hypervisor whose task
is to provide virtual access to underlying physical resources,
enabling features like fast start/stop of virtual machines
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
(VMs), snapshot, and VM migration [13]. CPU, RAM, and
storage are flexibly allocated to each VM via software.
Fig. 4. Simplified NFV architectural framework [14]
With NFV, operators gain greater flexibility in defining
service chains such that a particular service follows the path
most applicable to it. Benefits of NFV include lower capital
expenditures (CAPEX), lower operational expenditures
(OPEX), increased flexibility, scalability and elasticity, and
greater service agility and programmability (if SDN is
implemented too) [15].
In [16], an industry view of NFV for 2015 can be found,
which provide information about standardization processes
and market forecasts. Authors in [14] describe the NFV
concept and architecture, highlighting related work in ETSI,
Proofs-of-Concept (PoCs) and technical requirements. Two
use cases (virtualization of mobile core network and
virtualization of home network) are presented with their
benefits and challenges, then, open research issues and future
directions of NFV are identified. In turn, [17] discusses
transition from present to future NFV/SDN-based
architectures and networks remarking the transformation of
Service Provider OPEX in both qualitative and quantitative
way.
C. Software Defined Networking (SDN)
One of the most interesting disruptive technologies in
todays telecommunications landscape is SDN. Something that
came as a proposal to let researchers and network engineers
perform tests on network infrastructure without affecting the
current network configurations, has evolved to become a
promising approach to solve many of the problems of current
architectures, meet the challenges imposed by paradigms like
IoT and achieve the goals of technologies like 5G, among
other things.
The Open Networking Foundation (ONF), a user-driven
organization dedicated to the promotion and adoption of SDN
through open standards development, defines SDN as ...an
emerging architecture that is dynamic, manageable, cost-
effective, and adaptable, making it ideal for the high-
bandwidth, dynamic nature of today's applications. This
architecture decouples the network control and forwarding
functions enabling the network control to become directly
3
programmable and the underlying infrastructure to be
abstracted for applications and network services. [18]. The
first steps in the development of which would lead to SDN
occurred in 1997 with the GeoPlex by AT&T, but the SDN
concept as it is known today was developed in 2008 in a joint
effort of Stanford University and UC Berkeley. In 2011, the
ONF was created to promote SDN and OpenFlow.
References [19-26] include studies that offer comprehensive
information on SDN, from history to details of the most
remarkable and current developments in the different areas
involved. In particular, [23] provides an almost exhaustive
review of the concepts and technologies into SDN, including
references to specific works in each area, identifying key
issues, highlighting open research problems, describing the
benefits that SDN offers and discussing trends and future work
on the subject.
In the traditional approach, shown in Fig. 5, the
interconnection equipment (switches and routers) performs
both control and data forwarding functions with several
implications. One is that the reconfiguration of the control
processes involves tasks on each network equipment, which is
complex and costly. Additionally, protocols and policies
should be standardized to ensure interoperability between
network elements, limiting the options to define the criteria.
SDN virtue of separating control plane from data plane seems
simple but actually it opens a wide range of possibilities for
both services implementation such as network management.
Fig. 5. Traditional vs SDN-based network [21]
According the ONF, the main computing trends that are
driving the network change include the changing traffic
patterns, the consumerization of Information Technology (IT),
the rise of cloud services, the fact that big data means more
bandwidth, complexity that leads the stasis, inability to scale
and vendor dependence [18]. On the other hand, some of
benefits of SDN are: enhancing configuration, improving
performance, encouraging innovation [25], existence of
evolvable devices, hardware reuse, application awareness,
separation of policy and mechanism and higher levels of
abstraction, isolation and traffic control, centralized network
provisioning and management, independent programmability
from standard protocols/policies and more room for realistic
research/experimentation [26]. All these benefits of SDN are
derived from how its architecture has ben designed and
defined. The SDN architecture showed in Fig. 6 is directly
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
programmable, agile, centrally managed, programmable and,
ideally, open standards-based and vendor-neutral [18].
Fig. 6. Simplified SDN architecture [23]
Network Applications (SDN Applications) are programs
that explicitly, directly, and programmatically communicate
their network requirements and desired network behavior to
the SDN Controller via a northbound interface (NBI). In
addition they may consume an abstracted view of the network
for their internal decision making purposes [18]. Examples of
Network Applications are OpenQoS (traffic engineering) [27],
OpenRAN (mobile networking) [28] and CloudNaaS
(datacenter networking) [29].
Northbound Interfaces are interfaces between Network
Applications and SDN Controllers and typically provide
abstract network views and enable direct expression of
network behavior and requirements. This may occur at any
level of abstraction (latitude) and across different sets of
functionality (longitude). One value of SDN lies in the
expectation that these interfaces are implemented in an open,
vendor-neutral and interoperable way [18]. There is no
standardization for this interface [20].
The SDN Controller is a logically centralized entity in
charge of translating the requirements from the SDN
Application layer down to the SDN Data layer and providing
the Network Applications with an abstract view of the network
(which may include statistics and events). Definition as a
logically centralized entity neither prescribes nor precludes
implementation details such as the federation of multiple
controllers, the hierarchical connection of controllers,
communication interfaces between controllers,
virtualization or slicing of network resources [18]. Examples
of SDN Controller or Network Operatong Systems (NOCs)
are POX (centralized) [30] and OpenDaylight (distributed)
[31]. Examples of a virtualization solution and a programming
language are FlowVisor [32] and Pyretic [33] respectively.
The Southbound Interface is the interface defined between
an SDN Controller and a Forwarding Devices layer, which
provides at least programmatic control of all forwarding
operations, capabilities advertisement, statistics reporting, and
4
event notification. One value of SDN lies in the expectation
that the Southbound Interface is implemented in an open,
vendor-neutral and interoperable way [18]. One example of a
Southbound Interface is OpenFlow [34].
The Forwarding Devices are logical-physical network
devices that expose visibility and uncontended control over its
advertised forwarding and data processing capabilities. The
logical representation may encompass all or a subset of the
physical substrate resources. The engines and functions may
include simple forwarding between the external interfaces or
internal traffic processing or termination functions [18].
The whole SDN architecture is presented in [18, 20] where
its components are described in detail. In addition, authors in
[23] refer a lot of work related to each single part of the
architecture. These issues include terminology, definitions,
standardization, forwarding devices, southbound interfaces,
network hypervisors, controllers, northbound interfaces,
eastbound/westbound interfaces, language-based
virtualization, programming languages, network applications
and cross-layer issues (debugging, testing and simulation).
Ultimately, in [19], authors identify and explain the SDN
challenges, which are reliability, low level interfaces, ASIC
and CPU limitations, interoperability, security, controller
placement, performance and scalability.
D. 5G Mobile Networks
Fifth Generation of Mobile Networks (5G) is a concept
really new but evolves quite fast, primarily driven by the
industry. 5G, as an evolution of 4G, is more general in scope
because it must provide native support to new concepts such
as IoT, Small Cells/Heterogeneous Networks (HetNets) and
the exponential increase of connected devices. In general,
studies predict that by 2020 there will be between 50 and 100
billion connected devices, approximately 9.2 billion will be
mobile terminals and others will come from applications as
Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and IoT [35]. It is expected that
the new capabilities developed by 5G systems extend the
range of applications offered for the deployment of massive
Machine-Type Communications (MTC). The benefits of using
M2M cellular connections for MTC include stable
performance, security mechanisms and global reach [35].
Organizations around the world have begun to work on the
definitions and requirements of 5G as well as in the
architecture and technologies that will enable its
implementation. Those organizations include ITU, ETSI,
ARIB, 4G Americas, WRF, NGMN Alliance, EU, GSMA,
among others [36-40]. In [42], 4G Americas offers a one-time
overview of global 5G initiatives as of the first quarter of
2014.
Current and future services and environments will impose
nor important challenges to 5G systems. To achieve the goals in
all directions, future cellular networks must be a combination
of features and capabilities provided by a special set of
technologies to meet the requirements, as summarized in
Table 1. Some of the technologies in this table have already
been implemented in existing networks, but a high level of
optimization implementing them in 5G is expected.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

5G expectations and Improvement

Trends/proposals
Several architectures have been proposed but all them are
features dimension
based on the same concepts and technologies, so an interesting
Capacity and
throughput approach to a generic architecture for 5G is shown in Fig. 8 as
improvement, high
Spectrum reuse and use of different ban
presented in [40] where, in addition, use case categories
data rate (~1000x of
throughput Network
(e.g., mm-wave communications using definition and 5G use case families and related examples are
28 ~38 GHz bands), multi-tier network, introduced in an interesting way. NGMN Alliance defines a
improvement over capabilities
D2D communication, C-RAN, massive-
4G, cell data rate native SDN/NFV-based architecture with all the benefits it
MIMO
~10Gbps, signaling
loads less than 1 brings (hardware and software separation, control plane and
~100%) forwarding plane separation and programmability), covering
Reduce latency (2 to
5 ms end-to-end
Network Full-duplex communication, C-RAN, aspects ranging from devices, whole infrastructure, network
capabilities D2D communication
latencies) functions, value enabling capabilities and all the management
Network densification functions to orchestrate the 5G system. APIs are provided on
(~1000x higher
mobile data per unit Network the relevant reference points to support multiple use cases,
Heterogeneous and multi-tier network
area, 100 ~1000x capabilities value creation and business models [40].
higher number of
connecting devices)
Advanced services
and applications (e.g., Enabler for C-RAN, network virtualization, M2M
smart city, service- operational communication, Multi-RAT
oriented sustainability convergence
communication)
Improved energy
Enabler for
efficiency (~10x
operational Wireless charging, energy harvesting
prolonged battery
sustainability
life)
Autonomous
M2M communication, self-organizing
applications and Enabler for
and cognitive network, Multi-RAT
network management, business agility
convergence
Internet of Things
Enabler for
operational
SDN/NFV-based architectures, robust
Reliability (99,999%) sustainability /
fronthaul and backhaul Fig. 8. 5G generic architecture
Enabler for
business agility
Service deployment Enabler for
NFV, orchestration and management
Levels and components in the NGMN 5G architecture are
time (90 min) business agility as follows [40]:
Mobility (~500 Network
Km/h) capabilities
Robust air interfaces, cognitive radio 1. Infrastructure resource layer: physical resources of a
Table. 1. Features, trends, capabilities, requirements and technologies of 5G fixed-mobile converged network.
2. Business enablement layer: library of all functions
Fig. 7 depicts a generic 5G environment [43], required within a converged network in the form of
corresponding to a multi-tier cellular network where several modular architecture building blocks.
enabling technologies can be seen. In some areas, the 3. Business application layer: specific applications and
traditional micro and macro cellular deployment will be used services of the operator, enterprise, verticals or third
to support coexistence/compatibility/interoperability with parties that utilize the 5G network.
legacy infrastructure or due to coverage and capacity 4. E2E management and orchestration entity: contact point
restrictions. to translate the use cases and business models into actual
network functions and slices.
5. 5G Radio Access Technology (RAT) family: set of one or
more standardized 5G RATs that together support NGMN
5G requirements.
6. 5G RAT: component radio interface of the 5G RAT
family.
7. 5G Device: equipment used to connect to a 5G network to
obtain a communication service.
8. 5G System: communications system comprising a 5G
network and 5G devices.

Fig. 9 uses an interesting way to present most of the

concepts that have been discussed about 5G. The end-to-end
5G ecosystem should be architected to meet the expected
demand in 2020 and beyond, so that objectives compliance
will depend on how all these technologies and concepts will
be complemented in the future, and no doubt the industry will
play a very important role in this development. Authors in [43]
offer a summary of emerging technologies for 5G cellular
Fig. 7. 5G cellular wireless network [42] networks with a short description of each one. Meanwhile,
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
[44] presents examples of EU Projects researching technology
beyond 4G, a vision of 5G systems with descriptions of
technologies like Ultra-Dense Radio Access Networks
(UDRANETs), modulation techniques, offloading alternatives,
cognitive radio (CR), software defined radio (SDR), SDN and
spectrum use issues. In [45], a description of promising key
5G wireless technologies is presented with some remarks on
future challenges in 5G wireless communication networks.
Authors in [46] establish an interesting relationship between
challenges, enablers to address these challenges and 5G design
principles. In [47], Osseiran describes five scenarios for 5G in
terms of use cases, business models and obstacles. In addition,
a description of five disruptive technologies for 5G can be
found in [48].
Fig. 9. A preliminary view of an End-to-End 5G ecosystm [36]
By last, it is clearly expected that the core of the 5G
standardization related to mobile technologies will happen in
the context of 3GPP. However, many standardization activities
related to technologies that will be a part of 5G systems are
being performed in different standardization bodies (IETF,
ETSI, ONF, Open Daylight, OPNFV, Open Stack, ). A
high-level overview of the 5G roadmap is depicted in Fig. 10.
Fig. 10. 5G Roadmap [38]
II. SDN/NFV FOR 5G MOBILE NETWORKS
Further NFV opportunities and network programmability
are enabled through SDN as a natural solution for 5G cellular
networks, even modifying the mechanisms for services
creation, implementation and management. Therefore, this
section will describe the efforts and results of research
6
activities and standardization processes to define new
architectures for 5G based on SDN/NFV. Comparative
analysis among several proposals will be performed
highlighting the impact of SDN/NFV implementations in
different network areas and related activities/procedures. In
addition, some available commercial solutions will be
presented joint with current industry proposals for medium
and long term.
A. The Path to SDN/NFV-based Architecture
In cellular wireless networks, both OPEX and CAPEX are
strongly related to RAN. Reducing these costs is imperative to
ensure both profitability and scalability, which is quite
complicated considering that the trend is to systematically
increase the density of transmission sites to achieve the
coverage and capacity goals set by each technology
generation. Although 5G network architecture will be
NFV/SDN-based in a native way, some proposals and
commercial solutions are beginning to apply these concepts in
current 4G networks, specifically in the LTE (Long Term
Evolution) standard and doing a short review of current
commercial solutions, the progress in implementation would
be like Fig. 11 shows.
Fig. 11. Expected commercial evolution of NFV/SDN implementation in
mobile networks
In the generic architecture of 4G cellular networks, the core
network is basically an all-IP network because there is not any
circuit-switched-based element. That simplifies the abstraction
of the network as a set of functions that can be perform on
generic hardware (virtualization premise) and the decoupling
of data and control planes (software defined networking
premise) can be applied as in a regular data network.
Therefore, the application of NFV/SDN in the core network is
the first that appears naturally, even in 3G/4G networks.
The RAN has a nature quite different from the core
network. Many of the functions performed in the RAN are not
typical of conventional data networks and its distributed
nature itself makes the application of NFV/SDN a more
thoughtful issue. Because of this, most of the proposals for
implementing NFV/SDN in mobile networks focus on one of
two network areas (RAN or Core) and in some cases they are
oriented to very specific functional aspects such as mobility,
security or scheduling. However, it is likely that the
application of NFV/SDN in the access network brings more
benefits than in the Core. In addition, the control plane in
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 7

cellular networks is far more complex than in wired networks; these technologies after the PoCs. A well-defined route for
therefore, there will be higher benefits through the flexibility RAN virtualization is discussed in [53] in which C-RAN is
provided by both concepts operating synergistically. On the viewed as an intermediate step towards a complete NFV/SDN-
one hand, NFV can improve the efficiency and flexibility of based mobile network. However, the frontier between RAN
SDN control plane services in both the RAN and Core; SDN and CN is diffuse in a NFV/SDN architecture, but this issue is
can ensure delivery and quality of network traffic between explained in detail in [54] arguing that once the NFV/SDN
virtualized functions of NFV in both network areas. Many implementation phase has been overcome in mobile networks,
high-level applications and services will be optimized by these the concepts of CN and RAN become simple architectural
new features, including IoT services. views of the network rather than architectures itself. Some
related issues and experiences are discussed in [55] [56].
Gartner includes NFV, SDN, IoT and another related
technologies (SmallCells, HetNets, C-RAN) mainly in three of B. State of the Art: The Proposals
their 2016 Hype Cycles: Telecommunications Industry [49], State of the art on SDN, NFV, 5G and IoT is defined by
Software as a Service (SaaS) [50] and Wireless Network work in three related fronts: academic research groups,
Infrastructure [51]. RCR Wireless published a short report one industry and standardization bodies. Table 2 resumes main
year ago analyzing early implementation of NFV/SDN in projects related to NFV/SDN concepts applied to mobile
mobile networks [52]. Last year, the three technologies (NFV, networks.
SDN and IoT) were part of PoCs as well as 5G. All this is
evidence of the great expectation on the implementation of
Backwards
Ref. Solution Network area Concept Short description Year
compatibility
Reprogrammable solution with SDN hierarchical controllers. Network slicing and scheduling are
[57] Double controller SDN Core & RAN SDN Not discussed 2014
performed.
[58] All-SDN Core & RAN SDN Not discussed Two SDN controllers (RAN and CN) with distributed functions. 2015
[61] Smart SDN Core & RAN SDN Not discussed Centralized SDN control with resource abstraction and APIs to provide network intelligence. 2015
[62] SDN in FNA RAN SDN Not discussed FNA-based structure with one SDN controller. Network slicing is performed. 2014
[63] SoftAir Core & RAN SDN No Data and control plane elements are defined by software. Centralized SDN and programmability. 2015
Radio access control in HetNets with network intelligence. Network behavior abstraction using
[64] SoftMobile RAN SDN Yes 2014
layers, centralized SDN.
Functions distribution among BBs and SDN controller. Centralized management specially designed
[65] HSA-SDN RAN SDN Not discussed 2016
for HetNets.
[66] SDN with AHM RAN SDN Not discussed SDN controller with Authentication Handover Module (AHM). Privacy protection. 2015
A single SDN controller that can be implemented in the cloud. Handover decisions are made
[67] SDN centralized RAN SDN No 2014
according to the global view of the network.
Several SDN controllers distributed by geographical areas. Both internal and inter-domain
[67] SDN semi-centralized RAN SDN No 2014
handovers are considered but there isnt a global view of the network.
Multiple layers of controllers: lower layer with distributed SDN controller and upper layers with
[67] Hyerarchical SDN RAN SDN No 2014
centralized SDN controller. There is a global view f the network in a domain scheme.
Centralized SDN controller. A software defined MobileFlow Forwarding Engine (MFFE) for the
[68] MobileFlow Core SDMN Yes 2013
whole network.
Distributed network functions or distributed at the edge. Control plane with three logical controllers.
[69] Plastic SDN RAN SDN Yes 2014
All-SDN cloud architecture.
Backhaul &
[70] Distributed security SDN Yes Centralized EEPC. Data flows through the aggregation level closer to BS and EPC. 2014
Core
Wireless Mesh
[71] Backhaul SDN Yes Centralized SDN for WMN backhaul with SDN transport network from BSs to the EPC. 2015
Network
Mobile traffic offloading to WiFi using SDN in a hierarchical way. Centralized SDN controller plus
[72] Offloading with SDN Backhaul SDN Not discussed 2014
another local controller.
Mobile version of SDN concept with OpenFlow coltrol, network slicing using FlowVisor and NOX
[74] OpenRoad Core SDN Not discussed 2010
as network operator system. SNMP is used and applies for WiMAX and WiFi.
Centralized SDN controller for the whole network and packet classification is moved to the network
[75] SoftCell Core SDN Yes 2013
edge.
Whole RAN abstraction in a huege single and virtual BTS, which performs resorce allocation,
[76] SoftRAN RAN SDN Not discussed
mobility management, load balancing and other control functions in a centralized way.
A virtual EPC for each service and NFV en in the control plane. Hybrid architecture with virtualized
[77] NFV in EPC Core NFV Not discussed 2014
S-GW and P-GW.
[78] vEPC grouping Core NFV Yes Grouping of vEPC entities with distributed functionalities in four interconnected segments. 2014
[79] IPsec Core NFV Yes IP security and NFV environment consolidation. 2015
[80] Access Cloud RAN & Core SDN/NFV No SDN-based architecture with EPC funtions completely virtualized. OpenFlow is used as southbound. 2015
C-RAN resource allocation orchestrated with NFV. MSP cloud infrastructure and intelligente
[81] CSDN RAN SDN/NFV Yes 2015
service orchestration with SDN in a centralized way.
Distributed SDN architecture in the core network. Single SDN controller and a single NFV
[82] SoftNet RAN & Core SDN/NFV Yes 2015
orchestrator inside a NFVI.
Three clouds: access, control and forwarding. Each cloud is SDN-based and interaction between
[83] 3 clouds RAN SDN/NFV No 2015
clouds is considered.
Centralized EPC as a group of VNFs. OpenFlow is used and two SDN controllers: NFV-SDN
[84] SDN-based MPC Core SDN/NFV Yes 2015
controller and SDN controller for E2E connectivity. Management and orchestration of VNFs.
Software defined core network with dynamic traffic management and functions reconfiguration.
[85] Integrated SDMN Core SDMN/NFV No Backbone abstraction using NFV, centralized management and support to SDR and CR concepts 2016
and technologies.
Table. 2. NFV and/or SDN based proposals for future mobile networks
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Authors in [57] define an architecture to support mobility,
routing management and Connectivity Management as a
Service (CMaaS) in a 5G environment. Specialized and
expensive elements like MME, S-GW, P-GW and PCRF have
not been included in the model, as well as tunneling protocols.
The model incorporates a set of interconnected hierarchical
SDN controllers: main controller, RAN controller, BSs
controller and even an UE controller. Scheduling is performed
on geographic areas with multiple eNBs as network slices.
First step towards a SDMN should be the implementation of
a single controller similar to how its done in computer
networks, but RAN and CN separation enhance network
adaptability to multiple scenarios and requirements (IoT for
example). Authors in [58] propose a hierarchical deployment.
The CN controller operates in programmable centralized way
using OpenFlow as southbound and network functions like
load balancing and firewall will be implemented as network
applications in the higher layers. RAN controllers concentrate
access functions for a set of eNBs and it would be
implemented in the cloud for RAN flexibility and scalability.
Most of the reviewed proposals make similar approaches
with some specific goals such as energy efficiency [59],
support to SDR/CR concepts [60], HetNets dynamic
environment support [61] or a Frameless Network
Architecture (FNA) design [62]. SoftAir [63] and SoftMobile
[64] stand out among other proposals. SoftAir defines
Software Defined Base Stations (SD-BSs) in the RAN and
Software Defined Switches (SD-S) in the CN. The whole
control logic is implemented by software and runs on
conventional computers and remote data centers. Its
architecture offers five key properties: dynamic
programmability on the way, multiple virtual networks in a
single SoftAir interface, cooperation, open interfaces in data
and control planes, and network visibility from the centralized
controllers. Three interesting approaches to SDN
implmenetation in mobile networks are OpenRAN, SoftCell
and SoftRAN [64]. OpenRAN was proposed by the same team
that invented SDN as a mobile version of it and it includes
basic components like OpenFlow for control, FlowVisor for
slicing and NOX as network operating system, but air
interface configuration is made by SNMP (Simple Network
Management Protocol) in WiFi and WiMAX environments.
Softcell defines a single controller to gobern all the CN for
scalability and flexibility. SoftRAN, like OpenRAN, was born
in Standford University and defines the abstraction of the
entire RAN in a huge virtual BTS, which performs resource
allocation, mobility, load balancing and other functions for all
cell sites in the RAN. SoftRAN faces several challenges like
backhaul capacity dimensioning and latency in the control
plane. The evolution of these previous concepts and proposals
resulted in a partial solution for control in Heterogeneous
Mobile Network (HMN) environments: SoftMobile [64].
Architecture of SoftMobile is based on a layered model and
used to support efficient operation of RAN in a highly
programmable environment and all network functions are
performed as applications with legacy networks compatibility.
As mentioned above, there are many interesting proposals
covering the main issues related to RAN, CN and backhaul in
current and future mobile networks. Concepts like
Harmonized SDN-enabled Approach (HSA) [65] and
8
Authentication Handover Module (AHM) [66] are deeply
explained in the works referenced in Table 2, which classifies
proposals acordint to network segment involved (RAN, CN or
backhaul) and technology applied (SDN, NFV or both).
Alternatives like MobileFlow [68] give the network high
flexibility in such a way that operators can innovate in their
domain without relying on content providers or equipment
manufacturers (specially UEs). The SDMN defined by
MobileFlow comprises a MobileFlow Forwarding Engine
(MFFE) and a MobileFlow Controller (MFC) as logical
centralized entities to support operation and innovation in
network functionalities.
In addition to NFV/SDN implementations within RAN and
CR, some approaches are focused on using these concepts to
enhance the backhaul. [69] [70] [71] [72] propose SDN-based
solutions in the backhaul which ranging from all-SDN cloud
architectures to SDN-based wireless mesh networks in the
transport network, making evident the SDN in the
interconnection networks would be the key to achieving the
required efficiency of future mobile networks. Finaly, three
more solutions: OpenRoads [74], SoftCell [75] and SoftRAN
[76] are well-defined proposals focused on SDN
implementation in the CN and RAN whose review is
recommended.
About NFV contributions to mobile network evolution,
vendors and operators are focused on the required NFVI for
E2E service building and they are taking time to define and
decide which functions should be virtualized first and where,
since there are economic and technical reasons why these
functions are not virtualized overnight [73]. NFV allows slices
definition by EPC virtualization for each type of service. This
is quite important for 5G networks and IoT services because
these services scenarios have been defined as use cases on 5G
and IoT is one of them. Maybe, this is the only way to adjust
the performance of 5G networks to the different requirements
of each type of service, ensuring flexibility, scalability and
cost-effectiveness [77].
Proposals like described in [78] and [79] are focused on
pure NFV application in the CN to support EPC functionalities
as security and mobility management. Others like [80] [81]
[82] [83] [84] and [85] address the integration of SDN and
NFV in the mobile network. AccessCloud [80] and SoftNet
[82] stand out because they consider implementation in both
CN and RAN. Although the RAN is a difficult area to NFV
application, benefits of base-band processing centralization
would be relief for migration of current networks to 5G.
Neves et al. proposed an advanced network management
system to 5G based on SDN/NFV [129]. The proposal is a
product of the project SELFNET. SELFNET aims to design
and implement an autonomic framework to achieve self-
organizing capabilities in managing network infrastructures
[130]. The system architecture defined by SELFNET is
composed by five layers (infrastructure, data network, control,
SON autonomic, and SON access). Each layer has different
sub-layers with specific tasks. For example, on top of the
Physical Sublayer is the Virtualization Sublayer which
provides access to the virtual resources of the Data Center
through an hypervisor. The Virtualization Sublayer represents
the NFVI. Another interesting component is the NFV
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Orchestration and Management Layer (OML), transversal to
the first four layers and responsible for orchestrating and
managing the functions of the SON Sublayers. Between the
proposed use cases in 5G networks are self-protection, self-
healing, and self-optimization of resource deployment to
maintain QoS levels.
C. Early Implementations
SDN and NFV are technologies in current development and
definition, however player on industry start to building
solutions a couple of years ago. For this survey, more than 30
companies were consulted, of which 35% are operators and
65% are infrastructure providers. Service providers shown a
great interest in NFV and main vendors like Ericsson, Nokia,
Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei have begun to adapt and update
their solutions for NFV support [86] [87]. Other companies
that provide software at the operator level like WindRiver,
6WIND, Qosmos and HP have been working with Intel in
order to optimize software solucin for maximize
compatibility with NFV and SDN concepts using COTS. Intel
launched its Data Plane Development Kit (DPDK) and
schedule the launching of a signal processing development kit
to extend and accelerate NFV/SDN adoption [85].
Quantitative results about impact of SDN in CAPEX and
OPEX shown a reduction of 7,72% and 0,31% respectively
compared with LTE non-SDN networks [89].
Alcatel-Lucent launch its first application of NFV to mobile
networks in 2014, a vEPC solution for LTE and beyond [90]
already implemented in more than 80 commercial networks. A
solution for RAN virtualization is offered too, called VRAN
[91] that includes a vBBU and a vRNC. Aricent is a company
working on C-RAN solutions by introduction of NFV/SDN in
order to reduce expenditures and support RAN as a Service
(RANaaS) [92] [93]. Giant of IT world, Cisco, has a
commercial solutions based on NFV and SDN called Virtual
Packet Core (VPC) and eXtensible Network Controller (XNC)
which are compatible with 2G, 3G, 4G and WiFi [94] [95].
Maybe, the most complete NFV/SDN-based solution oriented
to mobile infrastructures is SoftCom by Huawei [96], which is
a unified ICT infrastructure with NFV/SDN enabled. Juniper
Networks, Affirmed Networks and Saguna have joined to
perform a PoC of a complete platform called Mobile Edge
Computing (MEC) [97] [98]. More commercial NFV/SDN-
based solutions are already offered by Nokia [99], Coriant-
EXFO [100], Radisys [101], Artesyn [102] [103], Aliostar
[104], NEC [105], Brocade [106], among others.
Service providers are working in these issues too. Verizon,
Telefonica, NTT DoCoMo, SK Telecom, among others, are
working with several vendors like Ericsson, Juniper, Big
Switch, Ciena, RedHat and Cisco to build the future mobile
infrastructure facing 5G requirements.
Forecasts shown that enterprise market for NFV/SDN will
grow to 18 billion by 2018 [107] [108] [109].
III. SDN/NFV LOWING THE BARRIER FOR IOT APPLICATIONS
AND SERVICES
The foreseen blast of IoT will result in the generation of
enormous amounts of data, which have to be stored, processed
and presented in a seamless, efficient, and easily interpretable
9
form. Computing resources can be provided by the virtual
infrastructure available in current Cloud Computing platforms.
This infrastructure is able to cope with the integration of
monitoring devices, storage devices, analytics tools,
visualization platforms and client delivery. However, the
requirement of maintaining smart connectivity with current
networks and performing context-aware computation using
network resources can not be accomplished with current WiFi
and 4G-LTE infrastructure. Computing and networking
paradigms must go beyond traditional mobile computing
scenarios that use smart phones and portables, and evolve into
connecting everyday existing objects and embedding
intelligence into our environment [110].
Several studies converge in the fact that robust and reliable
infrastructures are needed to support the main challenges that
IoT still have to face in order to be fully deployed [2] [110].
Quality of service, security/privacy, addressing and
networking, among others cannot be provided with the ill-
suited architecture of current networks. A next-generation
architecture shall be aware of all these open issues and,
therefore, it relies in SDN/NFV to provide the needed
components to overcome the shortcomings of current mobile
architectures.
A. Are Current Network Infrastructures Prepared for IoT?
There are three main requirements that will come from an
enabled IoT environment that shall be addressed by the
network infrastructure [111], namely:
1. Capacity: The implementation of small devices able to
sense the real world and transmit the obtained data to any
place, any time, thanks to the Internet, is now a reality due
to the evolution of computing and communications
disciplines. With the expecting growing of such devices,
the capacity of processing and transmitting all this
information is also expected to grow in the coming years.
Therefore, current Internet architectures shall evolve in
order to support the foreseen capacity.
2. Ubiquity: The continuous grow of small devices in the
network generates ubiquitous sensing and actuating
capabilities that may produce unprecedented scenarios of
smart interaction between virtual and real worlds. Such
ubiquity must be supported from the network
infrastructure by, for example, decoupling device location
from device identification (current IP addresses are, at the
same time, locators and identifiers).
3. Scalability: Internet infrastructure is currently ossified and
it is not able to handle strict QoS guarantees when it
comes to emergent services (real time streaming, video on
demand, etc.) [112]. What would happen with current
infrastructure with the expected increase in the number of
Internet-enabled devices?. The scalability of the TCP/IP
stack will be seriously challenged. For instance, devices
behind a Network Address Translation (NAT) server are
opaque. The scalability of the current DNS service will
also be affected with the huge increase in the number of
device elements and networks.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Consequently, Future Internet (FI) architectures are being
proposed in order to support the requirements imposed by IoT.
As shown in Fig. 12, there is a bidirectional relationship
between FI and IoT; IoT will not be completely deployed
without a robust and reliable Internet infrastructure that
support the main IoT requirements, in turn, a key element of
FI infrastructures shall be to support ubiquitous and scalable
IoT applications and its interactions with current Internet
equipment.
Fig. 12. Relationship between FI and IoT
Software Defined Networking and Network Functions
Virtualization are key technologies to enable FI architectures
to support the aforementioned requirements [113]. On the one
hand, SDN separates the control plane from the data plane;
this will increase the flexibility and adaptability of the network
infrastructure: network programmability provided by SDN
makes this infrastructure less dependent on the protocols and,
therefore, it becomes more scalable. On the other hand, NFV
allows to decouple hardware from functionality by virtualizing
the network functions; this allows the operators to use
commodity instead of specialized hardware when building
their infrastructure, resulting in a significant reduction of their
operative and capital expenditures (OPEX and CAPEX).
Besides, NFV enables the dynamic provision of network
functionality, which contributes to the deployment of
ubiquitous services.
Currently, some research initiatives have started to propose
the interactions SDN-IoT and NFV-IoT. Next, these two
interactions are deeply surveyed.
B. Software Defined Networking Enabling the Internet of
Things
As we have previously mentioned, current Internet
infrastructure was not designed to support the high level of
scalability, high amount of traffic and mobility introduced by
the birth of IoT. The infrastructure responsible for transmitting
the information coming of IoT devices should be adapted to
the new post-PC services, while providing security, stability,
high rate, reliability and availability among others. The recent
idea of add programmability to the network in order to provide
customization of the network behavior can overcome some of
IoT requirements. SDN is able to offer this programmability;
besides, it offers the flexibility to take decisions on IoT
networks using customized algorithms that can be instantly
10
deployed in the real network infrastructure [114].
Here, the interaction between SDN and IoT is reviewed.
Two interesting branches of recent research have been found:
SDN in network operators to support IoT and SDN
architectures to control IoT.
SDN in network operators to support IoT
In [115], the authors describe how SDN can be integrated to
current mobile and cloud infrastructures using two use cases:
i) An SDN switch acting as an IoT gateway controlled by a
cloud-based SDN controller, and ii) an eNodeB where SDN is
used to offload data related traffic from the Evolved Packet
Core (EPC) to improve quality of experience for the users in
LTE networks.
The first use case is proposed for home environments
where IoT is used in smart automated appliances such as,
HVAC, washing/drying machines, smart plugs lighting,
multimedia, etc. All the data generated by these
appliances shall be protected from external attacks,
provided with confidentiality and integrity, and prioritized
with regard to non-critical traffic. All these functionalities
can be currently implemented by expensive specific
destination hardware (Firewalls, IPSec/IKE, Traffic
shapers, etc.). However, if the IoT gateways in smart
homes are cheap SDN switches, all the intelligence to
provide the required functions can be concentrated in the
SDN controller which will be located at the operator
premises. Apart from that, the controller performs
provisioning, configuration, administration and upgrades
and maintenance of the IoT gateways in an efficient and
cost-effective way.
The second proposed use case shows how the introduction
of SDN in the current LTE architecture may help in
reducing the traffic load by introducing traffic
classification. Currently, all traffic (voice and data)
follows the same path before going into the Internet -
eNodeB Serving Gateway (S-GW) Packet data
network gateway (PDN-GW). By installing a SDN switch
in the eNodeB, policies may be installed that reduce the
traffic load by routing the traffic that can be offloaded to
the Internet (e,g. video, file transfer or P2P) directly
without having to traverse the S-GW and the PDN-GW.
In [116], Ojo et al. proposed a general SDN-IoT
architecture with NFV implementation. They studied where
and how to adopt SDN and NFV according to the challenges
of IoT. The main contribution of authors is to analyze the
business perspective of IoT by considering SDN and NFV as
market enablers.
SDN architectures to control IoT
Several approaches to control IoT using the SDN paradigm
has been recently proposed. Some of them tackle Wireless
Sensor Networks (WSN), which always had been thought to
be application-specific [117]. However, this belief can lead to
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 11

resource underutilization (multiple WSNs for respective such architecture is to offer Sensing-as-a-Service where a
applications are deployed in the same or overlapping terrain) user request a sensing service that is provided through the
and counterproductivity (different vendors develop WSN in cloud sensing architecture (see Fig. 13a).
isolation). Therefore, recent research proposes a Software-
Defined WSN architecture to face these shortcomings:
In [118], the authors claim that in current WSN
architectures, each node implements all network layers, from
physical to application, and therefore, they act in an
autonomous way making the WSN inelastic and hard to
manage. To overcome these limitations, they propose a
programmable data plane that can be manipulated from a
logically centralized controller via a new protocol called
Sensor OpenFlow (SOF); the idea is to transform traditional
WSN networks in versatile (sensors become application-
customizable), flexible (easier policy enforcement due to
centralization) and easy to manage (open APIs allow to easily
add new applications) networks.
Implementing a SOF protocol is very challenging as the (a)
conditions of a WSN environment are very different from the
ones SDN and OpenFlow are currently made for (wired
environments). Here, the authors propose the following
strategies to cope with the main challenges to build Software
Defined Wireless Sensor Networks:
Creating flows in SDN is typically made based on address
match fields (IP/MAC addresses or MPLS labels), in
contrast, WSN are data-centric networks so the flow
matching is made based on concatenated-attribute-value
pairs, for instance, 30<temperature<60 and Zone-ID=7
(b)
AND x-coordinate>150. Fig. 13. Software-Defined Sensor Networks a) Cloud Sensing Architecture
In SDN, the OpenFlow channel transmits messages b) Software-Defined Sensor Architecture [120]
between a controller and a switch using the TCP/IP stack.
To solve this problem in WSN, the SOF channel is To deploy this cloud-WSN integrated architecture today,
supplied by overlaying a transport protocol directly over multiple application-specific WSNs should be deployed in the
WSN [119]. same area. Here, the authors propose Software-defined sensor
To avoid the congestion overhead introduced by the networks (SDSNs) consisting on programmable sensor nodes
control channel between the controller and each sensor, that can change their functionalities by loading on-demand
SOF just send a flow-setup request to the controller for programs according to the requests performed by the end user.
the first miss in its flow table. The remaining associated SDSNs will be integrated in the cloud-WSN architecture (see
packets are suppressed until the corresponding answer is blue ballons in Fig. 13a), so that if the deployed sensors
received from the controller. cannot satisfy the sensing requirements offered by the cloud,
In traditional SDN, end nodes are out of the scope of on-demand programs can be injected to these sensors to adapt
OpenFlow as it communicates just with forwarding their functionality to the user requests.
switches. In WSN, end nodes act as SDN-switches (they The architecture of the SDSNs is detailed in Fig. 13b. The
forward data) and traffic generators. To cope with this main goal of a SDSN is to deploy sensing tasks that are
difference, a traffic generation module is added to each requested from the Sensing-as-a-Service infrastructure. The
sensor; this module is in charge of reading data from the main roles of the SDSN architecture are:
sensing hardware, and converting the data if needed. Sensor Control Server: It provides a role (e.g. cluster
In contrast to traditional SDN networks, in WSN data is head, data aggregator, temperature sensing, etc.)
sometimes processed in-situ in order to reduce data generation and delivery mechanism, where a scenario
redundancy to optimize bandwidth and energy. To solve compiler generates sensor role programs based on a
this difference, the proposed architecture adds an in-net scenario description that specifies the functions to be
proc module to each sensor that modifies the packet as activated in sensor nodes. This element can be seen as the
needed and passes it to the flow table. counterpart of a controller in a SDN traditional
architecture.
In [120], the authors propose an architecture based on the Sensor Nodes: As in traditional WSNs, they are the end
convergence of WSN and cloud-computing. The main aim of nodes of the architecture in charge of sense the
environment and transmit the useful data to a sink.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
However in SDSNs, these nodes include a mechanism to
dynamically initiate a role in response to the user
requests. By invoking a generated role program
downloaded to a sensor, the sensor can adjust its
functionalities and properties to perform the
corresponding task.
Although in the article, the authors do not mention how the
sensor control server would communicate with the end sensor
nodes to perform the network control; it is possible to think
that a control channel such as the above-mentioned SOF
would perfectly fit in this architecture.
Besides from WSN networks, SDN has been proposed as an
enabler technology to propose architectures to manage and
control IoT environments. For instance, in [121], the authors
propose an IoT management architecture where the controller
manages the network topology. It has the advantage that the
IoT network becomes independent of its gateway; that is, if
the gateway breaks down, as a SDN controller manages it, the
network can reconfigure accordingly and the gateway can be
updated.
A wider SDN-based architecture of IoT is presented in
[122]. Here, the architecture is proposed to overcome the
following shortcomings of the heterogeneous multi-networks
IoT nature: 1) shared provisioning of network and sensor
resources across applications, and 2) interoperability challenge
that arises when heterogeneous devices exploit different data
formats for modeling information and diverse protocols for
machine-to-machine (M2M) data exchange. The proposed
architecture of the SDN-IoT controller is shown in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14. IoT Controller Architecture [122]
It is composed of a data collection component that allows
storing the information of the multiple IoT network
environments and presenting it to a layered set of components.
These components represent the way to abstract the
heterogeneity of the different IoT network and devices in four
layers: 1) The task resource matching layer is in charge of
defining high level tasks (e.g. determine how many vehicles
currently there are in a recharging station), each task is then
subdivided in several services (e.g. capture video from
recharging station + count vehicles) managed by 2) the
Service and Solution Specification layer. After services have
been defined, 3) the Flow Scheduling layer takes the
requirements of each service and schedule flows to fulfill
12
them; this is a challenging and complex task that is solved in
the paper by means of network calculus and genetic
algorithms. Finally, 4) the communications layer triggers the
necessary communications in the IoT Multinetworks (e.g.,
route the video data sent from Camera 001 via Ethernet).
The aforementioned SDN-based architectures for IoT have
not accounted for a paramount feature of large-scale (urban)
IoT environments: mobility. To cope with this important
requirement, a new architecture, called UbiFlow: A software-
defined IoT system for ubiquitous flow control and mobility
management in urban heterogeneous networks. The
architecture of Ubiflow is depicted in Fig. 15 where multiple
controllers (each with the internal architecture presented in
Fig. 14) are deployed in different geographical areas (called
partitions).
Fig. 15. UbiFlow System Architecture [123]
Thanks to its distributed architecture, UbiFlow has a
consistent and updated state of the multiple-IoT networks, its
key contributions are:
A distributed overlay infrastructure of SDN controllers to
achieve mobility management and fault tolerance in the
multiple IoT networks in an urban environment. All IoT
devices in a single partition request different types of
dataflows that are analyzed and scheduled by the
controller responsible of this partition by means of robust
optimization algorithms. To achieve network consistency,
the controllers form an overlay network where they
interchange meaningful information that allows the whole
infrastructure to provide mobility management (Mobile
SDN-based handover) and scalable control.
An optimal assignment algorithm for the controller that
allows an efficient schedule of the dataflows requested by
the IoT multiple networks. This algorithm is based in
network calculus and optimization heuristics.
A load balancing scheme for distributed controllers by
analyzing the variations in flow traffic characteristics.
C. Network Functions Virtualization Enabling the Internet of
Things
As NFV is an emerging paradigm, few approaches have
tackled the impact that it may have in the deployment of future
architectures able to support IoT. These approaches define
NFV in the core of the architecture to reduce the OPEX and
CAPEX of the operators. Besides, it is always integrated with
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
SDN performing a centralized control to take decisions over
the virtualized architecture.
In [124], the authors claim that the architectural evolution
required by an IoT-based Internet shall be based on the
combination of SDN and virtualization (including NFV) as
Fig. 16 shows. They propose a new architecture built
according to two virtualization levels: 1) network level, where
virtualization is used to abstract network elements in a
distributed pool that may involve different physical locations
[125], and 2) end-user level, where virtualization is used to
improve the connectivity among different IoT user devices
(e.g. sensor virtualization).
Fig. 16. Virtualization levels and layers [124]
The proposed architecture is composed on three main layers
built on top of the aforementioned virtualization levels:
The SDN control layer in charge of providing centralized
control to the network dataplane. This dataplane may
belong to different virtual networks that are instantiated
according to the application demands. It manages, by
means of routing and shaping, the traffic flows traversing
the network devices.
The Thin software virtualization layer is installed in end-
user devices to abstract sensor network subsets that serve
different applications. The main goal of this layer is to
abstract sensor functionalities to allow interoperability
among different vendors.
Finally, the Network infrastructure virtualization layer
offers an abstract view of the core network equipment as
virtual networks. It works together with the SDN control
layer to facilitate efficient allocation and usage of
networking resources.
In [126], an architecture based in NFV + SDN is proposed
to overcome the main challenges posed by the IoT arrival.
These paper highlights the following challenges: 1) IoT
market, services, and use cases taking into account the
explosive growth of IoT due to the fact that in an IoT
ecosystem the traffic generated by machines may exceed the
13
one generated by humans, 2) IoT requirements against
network, here the challenge is to understand the impact of the
upcoming machine-generated traffic in the network
architecture (i.e. impact in security, privacy, mobility,
scalability, QoS, resilience, etc.) 3) Architecture requirements
for IoT, where the challenge is to converge different
technologies that support IoT in a common architecture, 4) IoT
infrastructure services deals with the challenging
implementation of the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)
concept to offer this infrastructure to service providers by
means of emergent technologies (e.g. SDN, network
virtualization and NFV), and 5) IoT overall impact on
architecture, where the challenge is to design an architecture
able to cope with the specifics of IoT traffic (unpredictability,
fluctuation, elasticity, etc.).
This work also claims that NFV + SDN can be very
beneficial for IoT based network environments. SDN will
deploy the services by allocating Virtual Network Functions
(VNF) in the places decided by the NFV orchestrator. In turn,
NFV decouples infrastructure services from resources. Thus,
IoT use-cases can be isolated preventing the risk of impacting
one infrastructure by different services.
To face the aforementioned challenges making use of SDN
and NFV technologies, this approach proposes an SDN/NFV-
based IoT architecture to provide infrastructure service (cf. Fig
17).
Fig. 17. NFV/SDN-based IoT infrastructure [126]
The architecture is divided in layers and actors. On the one
hand, the main actors of the IoT ecosystem are: 1) IoT Service
Broker that aggregates connected objects and provides links
for different application domains, 2) Object Owner that buys
and maintains the objects (things), 3) Object User who uses
the object, 4) Data Owner that stores and manages the data
gathered from connected objects, 5) Data Analyst that perform
the analysis of the collected data, 6) Data User that can access
certain data portion, depending on the services he/she has
access to and, finally, 7) B2B Partner that contracts with the
IoT Service Broker to benefit from infrastructure services. On
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
the other hand, the layers of the architecture from top to
bottom are: 1) Service layer that groups all the service-level
functions at high level, 2) Global OS layer that contains the
orchestration NFV system and the SDN controllers, it decides
how to deploy the services in the infrastructure based on the
data analysis and manages the configuration of all network
elements, finally, 3) Virtualization layer in charge of
managing the hardware resources and their relationship with
virtual machines made available to the above layers.
D. Upcoming SDN/NFV-based IoT network architectures
As it have been reviewed in the previous chapter, several
approaches for the upcoming 5G architecture based on NFV
and SDN are being proposed by the research community.
Even, recent proposals aim to integrate SDN and NFV for
future network architectures [127] [128]. However, almost
none of them specifies how these proposals support the
foreseen blast of the IoT.
Here, it is considered that the main challenge for the
creation of an NFV/SDN-based 5G architecture will be to
make them suitable to cope with the requirements of the IoT
arrival. This challenge can be meet by finding means to adapt
IoT architectures such as the presented in this chapter, to the
5G architecture that is being proposed by the academy and
industry nowadays.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER WORK
This section describes the current efforts from both research
community and industry to propose convergent architectures
for the future generation of mobile access networks, able to
manage the increasing complexity generated by the growing
introduction of IoT devices in the coming years. This section
emphasizes the importance of the integration of SDN/NFV in
the 5G architecture to handle this complexity that will force
the network control plane to provide an efficient
administration of a huge amount of heterogeneous end devices
with different application-specific constraints. The role of
NFV here will be to decouple hardware from functionality by
means of virtualization. In turn, SDN will enforce the service
orchestration by allocating the virtual appliances in the most
adequate places in the network. It is then shown how IoT
applications and services will benefit from all this evolution.
Finally, some conclusions will be presented and raises the
main identified challenges. These challenges mainly belong to
the integration of SDN/NFV and 5G to improve the
manageability introduced by IoT that was discussed in Section
III.
REFERENCES
[1] Gartner's 2014 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Maps the
Journey to Digital Business. Gartner, Inc.
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2819918. Accessed 13 Jun 2015.
[2] Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2010). The internet of things: A
survey.Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.
[3] Ovidiu Vermesan and Peter Friess. Internet of Things: Converging
technologies for smart environments and integrated ecosystems. River
Publishers, River Publishers Series in Communications, 2013.
[4] The Internet of Things. ITU Internet Reports by International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), Geneva, November 2005.
14
[5] Isam Ishaq, David Carels, Girum K. Teklemariam, Jeroen Hoebeke,
Floris Van den Abeele, Eli De Poorter, Ingrid Moerman and Piet
Demeester. IETF Standardization in the Field of the Internet of Things
(IoT): A Survey. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 2013, 2,
235-287
[6] Harald Sundmaeker, Patrick Guillemin, Peter Friess and Sylvie
Woelffl. Vision and Challenges for Realising the Internet of Things.
Cluster of European Research Projects on the Internet of Things (CERP-
IoT), European Union, 2010.
[7] Ovidiu Vermesan and Peter Friess. IoT Governance, Privacy and
Security Issues. Position paper by Cluster of European Research Projects
on the Internet of Things (CERP- IoT), European Union, 2015.
[8] Ovidiu Vermesan and Peter Friess. Building the Hyperconnected
Society: IoT Research and Innovation Value Chains, Ecosystems and
Markets. River Publishers, River Publishers Series in Communications,
2015.
[9] M2M/IoT Sector Map. Beecham Research Limited.
http://www.beechamresearch.com/article.aspx?id=4. Accessed 13 Jun
2015.
[10] Introduction to the Architectural Reference Model for the Internet of
Things. Internet Of Things Architecture (IoT-A) Project, Seventh
Framework Programme at EU, 2013. (http://www.iot-a.eu/)
[11] Mark Fell, Hanne Melin. Roadmap for the emerging of Internet of
Things. Carr & Strauss, 2014.
[12] Chowdhury, N.M.M.K.; Boutaba, R., "Network virtualization: state of
the art and research challenges," Communications Magazine, IEEE,
vol.47, no.7, pp.20,26, July 2009
[13] Pierre Lynch, Michael Haugh, Liza Kurtz, Joseph Zeto. Demystifying
NFV in Carrier Networks: A definitive guide to successful migrations.
Ixia, 2014.
[14] Bo Han; Gopalakrishnan, V.; Lusheng Ji; Seungjoon Lee, "Network
function virtualization: Challenges and opportunities for innovations,"
Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol.53, no.2, pp.90, 97, Feb. 2015.
[15] Frank Yue. Network Functions Virtualization Everything Old Is New
Again. White paper by F5 Networks, Inc. 2013.
[16] Dan Meyer. Network Functions Virtualization: Standards, ecosystem
and 2015 predictions. RCR Wireless News Group, Frebruary 2015.
[17] Hernandez-Valencia, E.; Izzo, S.; Polonsky, B., "How will NFV/SDN
transform service provider opex?," Network, IEEE , vol.29, no.3,
pp.60,67, May-June 2015.
[18] Open Networking Foundation (www.opennetworking.org).
[19] Manar Jammal, Taranpreet Singh, Abdallah Shami, Rasool Asal,
Yiming Li, Software defined networking: State of the art and research
challenges, Computer Networks, Volume 72, 29 October 2014, Pages
74-98, ISSN 1389-1286
[20] Akram Hakiri, Aniruddha Gokhale, Pascal Berthou, Douglas C.
Schmidt, Thierry Gayraud, Software-Defined Networking: Challenges
and research opportunities for Future Internet, Computer Networks,
Volume 75, Part A, 24 December 2014, Pages 453-471, ISSN 1389-
1286
[21] Nunes, B.A.A.; Mendonca, M.; Xuan-Nam Nguyen; Obraczka, K.;
Turletti, T., "A Survey of Software-Defined Networking: Past, Present,
and Future of Programmable Networks," Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, IEEE, vol.16, no.3, pp.1617,1634, Third Quarter 2014
[22] Fei Hu; Qi Hao; Ke Bao, "A Survey on Software-Defined Network and
OpenFlow: From Concept to Implementation," Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, vol.16, no.4, pp.2181, 2206, Fourthquarter
2014
[23] Kreutz, D.; Ramos, F.M.V.; Esteves Verissimo, P.; Esteve Rothenberg,
C.; Azodolmolky, S.; Uhlig, S., "Software-Defined Networking: A
Comprehensive Survey," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol.103, no.1,
pp.14,76, Jan. 2015
[24] Hamid Farhady, HyunYong Lee, Akihiro Nakao, Software-Defined
Networking: A survey, Computer Networks, Volume 81, 22 April 2015,
Pages 79-95, ISSN 1389-1286
[25] Wenfeng Xia; Yonggang Wen; Chuan Heng Foh; Niyato, D.; Haiyong
Xie, "A Survey on Software-Defined Networking," Communications
Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE, vol.17, no.1, pp.27,51, Firstquarter 2015
[26] Macedo, D.F.; Guedes, D.; Vieira, L.F.M.; Vieira, M.A.M.; Nogueira,
M., "Programmable Networks From Software-Defined Radio to
Software-Defined Networking," Communications Surveys & Tutorials,
IEEE, vol.17, no.2, pp.1102, 1125, Secondquarter 2015
[27] H. Egilmez, S. Dane, K. Bagci, and A. Tekalp, OpenQoS: An Open-
Flow controller design for multimedia delivery with end-to-end quality
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
of service over software-defined networks, in Proc. Asia-Pacific Signal
Inf. Process. Assoc. Annu. Summit Conf., 2012, pp. 18.
[28] M. Yang et al., OpenRAN: A software-defined ran architecture via
virtualization, in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf., 2013, pp. 549550.
[29] T. Benson, A. Akella, A. Shaikh, and S. Sahu, Cloudnaas: A cloud
networking platform for enterprise applications, in Proc. 2nd ACM
Symp. Cloud Comput., 2011, pp. 8:18:13.
[30] M. McCauley, POX, 2012. (www.noxrepo.org)
[31] OpenDaylight, A Linux Foundation Collaborative Project, 2013.
(www.opendaylight.org)
[32] R. Sherwood et al., FlowVisor: A network virtualization layer,
Deutsche Telekom Inc. R&D Lab, Stanford, Nicira Networks, Tech.
Rep., 2009.
[33] J. Reich, C. Monsanto, N. Foster, J. Rexford, and D. Walker, Modular
SDN programming with pyretic, USENIX Mag., vol. 38, no. 5, Oct.
2013.
[34] Nick McKeown, Tom Anderson, Hari Balakrishnan, Guru Parulkar,
Larry Peterson, Jennifer Rexford, Scott Shenker, and Jonathan Turner.
2008. OpenFlow: enabling innovation in campus networks. ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, Volume 38, Issue 2,
Pages 69-74, April 2008.
[35] Ericsson Mobility Report. Ericsson AB, June 2015.
[36] 4G Americas Recommendations on 5G Requirements and Solutions. 4G
Americas, October 2014.
[37] Demestichas, P.; Georgakopoulos, A.; Karvounas, D.; Tsagkaris, K.;
Stavroulaki, V.; Jianmin Lu; Chunshan Xiong; Jing Yao, "5G on the
Horizon: Key Challenges for the Radio-Access Network," Vehicular
Technology Magazine, IEEE, vol.8, no.3, pp.47,53, Sept. 2013
[38] 5G Vision: The 5G Infrastructure Public Private Partnership - The next
generation of communication networks and services. 5G-PPP supported
by the European Commission, February 2015.
[39] 5G Vision and Requirements. IMT-2020 (5G) Promotion Group, May
2014.
[40] 5G White Paper. Next Generation Mobile Networks Ltd. (NGMN
Alliance), February 2015.
[41] Understanding 5G: Perspectives on future technological advancements
in mobile. GSM Association GSMA Intelligence, December 2014.
[42] 4G Americas Summary of Global 5G Initiatives. 4G Americas, June
2014.
[43] Hossain, E.; Hasan, M., "5G cellular: Key enabling technologies and
research challenges," Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, IEEE ,
vol.18, no.3, pp.11,21, June 2015
[44] Ral Chvez-Santiago, Micha Szydeko, Adrian Kliks, Fotis Foukalas,
Yoram Haddad, Keith E. Nolan, Mark Y. Kelly, Moshe T. Masonta and
Ilangko Balasingham. 5G: The Convergence of Wireless
Communications. International Journal on Wireless Personal
Communications, Springer US, March 2015.
[45] Cheng-Xiang Wang; Haider, F.; Xiqi Gao; Xiao-Hu You; Yang Yang;
Dongfeng Yuan; Aggoune, H.; Haas, H.; Fletcher, S.; Hepsaydir, E.,
"Cellular architecture and key technologies for 5G wireless
communication networks," Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.52,
no.2, pp.122,130, February 2014
[46] Agyapong, P.; Iwamura, M.; Staehle, D.; Kiess, W.; Benjebbour, A.,
"Design considerations for a 5G network architecture," Communications
Magazine, IEEE, vol.52, no.11, pp.65,75, Nov. 2014
[47] Afif Osseiran. Five alive! - 5G beyond the hype. Ericsson Business
Review, Issue 2, 2014.
[48] Boccardi, F; Heath, R.W.; Lozano, A.; Marzetta, T.L.; Popovski, P.,
"Five disruptive technology directions for 5G," Communications
Magazine, IEEE , vol.52, no.2, pp.74,80, February 2014
[49] "Hype Cycle for the Telecommunications Industry, 2015". Gartner, Inc.
25 July, 2015.
[50] "Hype Cycle for Software as a Service, 2015". Gartner, Inc. 29 July,
2015.
[51] "Hype Cycle for Wireless Networking Infrastructure, 2014". Gartner,
Inc. 24 July, 2015.
[52] Dan Meyer. "NFV, SDN and cloud: When, where and how deep?". RCR
Wireless. March, 2016.
[53] Monica Paolini. "Charting the path to RAN virtualization: C-RAN,
fronthaul and HetNets". Senza Fili, August, 2015.
[54] Monica Paolini. "Moving past C-RAN, to get the performance and cost
gains of full RAN virtualization - A conversation with Gilad Garon from
ASOCS". Senza Fili, July 2015.
15
[55] Monica Paolini. "RAN virtualization to achieve sustainable growth - A
conversation with Javier Lorca Hernando from Telefonica". Senza Fili,
August 2015.
[56] Monica Paolini. "The emergence of the NFV ecosystem: Laying the
foundation for a new way to run mobile networks". Senza Fili,
November 2014.
[57] R. Trivisonno, R. Guerzoni, I. Vaishnavi and D. Soldani. SDN-based
5G mobile networks: architecture, functions, procedures and backward
compatibility. Transactions on emerging telecommunications
technologies, 2014.
[58] V. Yazc, C. Kozat, and M. Sunay. A New Control Plane for 5G
Network Architecture with a Case Study on Unified Handoff, Mobility,
and Routing Management. IEEE Communications Magazine,
November 2014.
[59] R.L.G. Cavalcante et al., Toward Energy-Efficient 5G Wireless
Communications Technologies: Tools for Decoupling the Scaling of
Networks from the Growth of Operating Power, IEEE Signal Proc.
Mag., vol. 31, no. 6, Nov. 2014, pp. 2434.
[60] A. Dalvi, P. K. Swamy, and B. B. Meshram, Cognitive Radio:
Emerging Trend of Next Generation Communication System, Wireless
Communication, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and
Aerospace & Electronic Systems Technology (Wireless VITAE), 2011.
[61] S. Sun, L. Gong, B. Rong, and K. Lu, An Intelligent SDN Framework
for 5G Heterogeneous Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine
November 2015.
[62] X. Xiaodong, Z. Huixin, D. Xun, H. Yanzhao, T. Xiaofeng, Z. Ping.
SDN Based Next Generation Mobile Network With Service Slicing and
Trials. China Communications February 2014.
[63] I. Akyildiz, P. Wang, S. Chun-Lin. SoftAir: A software defined
networking architecture for 5G wireless systems. I.F. Akyildiz et al. /
Computer Networks 85 (2015) 118.
[64] T. Chen, H. Zhang, X. Chen and O. Tirkkonen. SoftMobile - Control
evolution for future heterogeneous mobile networks. IEEE Wireless
Communications, December 2014.
[65] A. Akhtar, X. Wang, and L. Hanzo. Synergistic Spectrum Sharing in
5G HetNets: A Harmonized SDN-Enabled Approach. IEEE
Communications Magazine (Volume:54 , Issue: 1 ), January 2016.
[66] X. Duan and X. Wang. Authentication Handover and Privacy
Protection in 5G HetNets Using Software-Defined Networking. IEEE
Communications Magazine, April 2015.
[67] S. Kuklinski, Y. Li, K. Truong. Handover Management in SDN-based
Mobile Networks. Globecom 2014 Workshop - The 6th IEEE
International Workshop on Management of Emerging Networks and
Services.
[68] K. Pentikousis, Y. Wang, and W. Hu MobileFlow - Toward Software-
Defined Mobile Networks. Huawei Technologies. IEEE
Communications Magazine, July 2013.
[69] R. Guerzoni, R. Trivisonno, D. Soldani. SDN-Based Architecture and
Procedures for 5G Networks. 2014 1st International Conference on 5G
for Ubiquitous Connectivity (5GU).
[70] V. Jungnickel, K. Habel, M. Parker, S. Walker, C. Bock, J. Ferrer.
Software-Defined Open Architecture for Front - and Backhaul in 5G
Mobile Networks. ICTON 2014 We.B4.4.
[71] K. Seppanen, J. Kilpi, T. Suihko. Integrating WMN Based Mobile
Backhaul with SDN Control. Springer, Mobile Netw Appl (2015)
20:3239.
[72] J. Costa, R. Kantola, J. Llorente, V. Ferrer, J. Manner, A. Yi-Ding, Y.
Liu, S. Tarkoma. Software Defined 5G Mobile Backhaul. 2014 1st
International Conference on SG for Ubiquitous Connectivity (SGU).
[73] Signals Research Group (2014), Signals Ahead, Vol. 9, Number 9,
Exploring the world of Wireless SDN and NFV: its not a single
network anymore.
[74] K.-K. Yap et al., OpenRoads: Empowering Research in Mobile
Networks, ACM SIGCOMM Comp. Commun. Rev., vol. 40, no. 1,
2010, pp. 12526.
[75] X. Jin et al., SoftCell: Scalable and Flexible Cellular Core Network
Architecture, 9th ACM Conf. Emerging Networking Experiments and
Technologies, 2013, pp. 16374.
[76] A. Gudipati et al., SoftRAN: Software Defined Radio Access
Network, 2nd ACM SIGCOMM Wksp. Hot Topics in Software
Defined Networking, 2013, pp. 2530.
[77] Bringing network function virtualization to LTE. 4G Americas.
November 2014.
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
[78] H. Hawilo, A. Shami, M. Mirahmadi, and R. Asal. NFV: State of the
Art, Challenges, and Implementation in Next Generation Mobile
Networks (vEPC). IEEE Network, November/December 2014.
[79] K. Faheem, Dr K. Rafique. Securing 4G/5G wireless networks. May
2015, Computer Fraud & Security.
[80] P. Ameigeiras, J. Ramos, L. Schumacher, J. Prados. Jorge Navarro-
Ortiz, and Juan M. Lopez-Soler Link-Level Access Cloud Architecture
Design Based on SDN for 5G Networks. IEEE Network, March/April
2015.
[81] A. Bradai, K. Singh, T. Ahmed, and T. Rasheed. Cellular software
defined networking: a framework. IEEE Communications Magazine
Communications Standards Supplement, June 2015.
[82] H. Wang, S. Chen, H. Xu, M. Ai, and Y. Shi. SoftNet: A Software
Defined Decentralized Mobile Network Architecture toward 5G. IEEE
Network, March/April 2015.
[83] Y. Fengyi, A. Haining, M. Chengli, Z. Jianmin, W. Min. A Flexible
Three Clouds 5G Mobile Network Architecture Based on NFV & SDN.
China Communications, Supplement No.1 2015.
[84] M. Sama, L. Contreras, J. Kaippallimalil, I. Akiyoshi, H. Qian, and H.
Ni. Software-Defined Control of the Virtualized Mobile Packet Core.
IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2015.
[85] M. Chen Y. Qian S. Mao W. Tang X. Yang. Software-Defined
Mobile Networks Security. Springer, Science+Business Media New
York 2016.
[86] Ericsson, Telefonica and Ericsson Partner to Virtualize Networks,
http://www.ericsson.com/news/1763979, PRESS RELEASE
FEBRUARY 2014.
[87] Alcatel-Lucent, Why Service Providers Need an NFV Platform,
http://www.tmcnet.com/tmc/whitepapers/documents/whitepapers/2014/9
598-why-service-providers-need-nfv-platform.pdf, 2013.
[88] Intel, Intel Data Plane Development Kit (Intel DPDK) Overview Packet
Processing on Intel Architecture, http://www.intel.com/content/dam/
[89] N. Zhang, H. Hmminen. Cost Efficiency of SDN in LTE-based [118] Tie Luo; Hwee-Pink Tan; Quek, T.Q.S., "Sensor OpenFlow: Enabling
Mobile Networks: Case Finland. Department of Communications and
Networking, Aalto University, 2015.
[90] Alcatel-Lucent virtualized EPC: delivering on the promise of NFV and
SDN. Application note. Alcatel-Lucent, 2014.
[91] Virtualizing the radio access network (RAN): Re-architecting mobile
radio access networks for today and tomorrow. Strategic white paper.
Alcatel-Lucent, 2015.
[92] Aricent: Cloud RAN. Aricent, 2016.
[93] C-RAN: The Road Towards Green RAN. White Paper. China Mobile
Research Institute. Diciembre, 2014.
[94] Cisco Virtualized Packet Core. http://www.
cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/service-provider/virtualized-packet-
core/index.html. Cisco, 2016.
[95] Cisco Extensible Network Controller: An OpenDaylight-Based
Controller. Datasheet. Cisco, 2014.
[96] D. Wenshuan. SoftCom, unified ICT infrastructure enabling
SDN&NFV. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd, 2014.
[97] Enabling Services in the RAN: Complete Pre-Integrated Mobile Edge
Computing Solution by Juniper Networks and Saguna. Juniper
Networks. September, 2015.
[98] Juniper Networks-Affirmed Networks, Joint Virtualized Mobile Services
Solution. Solution Brief. Juniper Networks. February, 2016.
[99] The what and why of NFV orchestration. Strategic white paper. Nokia,
2016.
[100] Nokia Networks, Aalto University and partners combine NFV and SDN
for virtualized mobile network. Press release. Nokia Aalto University,
2015.
[101] M. Paolini. The emergence of the NFV ecosystem: Laying the
foundation for a new way to run mobile networks (Report). Senza Fili
Consulting, 2014.
[102] Enabling More Versatility and Higher Performance for VNFs with the
MaxCore Platform. Artesyn Embedded Technologies. October, 2015.
[103] Cloud RAN Doing More with Less. Solution brief. Artesyn CO.
February, 2016.
[104] Altiostar Solutions. www.altiostar.com.
[105] NECs vEPC Solutions, 2015.
[106] E. Miller. Brocade helps mobile operator get to 5G with new IP. The
NEW IP, Febrero 2016.
http://www.thenewip.net/document.asp?doc_id=721101&site=thenewip
[107] J. Duffy. SDN market could hit $18B by 2018. Network World.
September, 2014.
16
http://www.itworld.com/article/2694257/networking/sdn-market-could-
hit--18b-by-2018.html
[108] How big is the SDN Market?. SDx central, 2013.
https://www.sdxcentral.com/reports/sdn-market-size-infographic-2013/
[109] M. Howard. NFV Market to Grow More than 5-Fold Through 2019,
Says HIS. Infonetics Research, 2016.
http://www.infonetics.com/pr/2015/NFV-Market-Highlights.asp
[110] Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of
Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions.
Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645-1660.
[111] Alberti, A. M., & Singh, D. (2013, May). Internet of Things:
Perspectives, Challenges and Opportunities. In International Workshop
on Telecommunications (IWT 2013).
[112] Anderson, T., Peterson, L., Shenker, S., & Turner, J. (2005).
Overcoming the Internet impasse through virtualization. Computer, (4),
34-41.
[113] De Turck, F.; Boutaba, R.; Chemouil, P.; Bi, J.; Westphal, C., "Guest
Editors' Introduction: Special Issue on Efficient Management of
SDN/NFV-Based ZHI14ZHI14SystemsPart I," Network and Service
Management, IEEE Transactions on , vol.12, no.1, pp.1,3, March 2015
[114] Valdivieso Caraguay, ngel Leonardo, et al. "SDN: Evolution and
Opportunities in the Development IoT Applications." International
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 2014 (2014).
[115] Tadinada, V.R., "Software Defined Networks: Redefining the Future of
Internet in IoT and Cloud Era," Future Internet of Things and Cloud
(FiCloud), 2014 International Conference on , vol., no., pp.296,301, 27-
29 Aug. 2014.
[116] Ojo, M., Adami, D., Giordano, S. A SDN-IoT Architecture with NFV
Implementation. 2016 IEEE Globecom Workshops, Dec. 2016.
[117] Heinzelman, Wendi Beth. Application-specific protocol architectures
for wireless networks. Diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
2000.
Software-Defined Wireless Sensor Networks," Communications Letters,
IEEE , vol.16, no.11, pp.1896,1899, November 2012
[119] T. Luo, H.-P. Tan, and T. Q. S. Quek, A compiled list of
transportprotocols for wireless sensor networks, May 2012. Available:
http://www1.i2r.a-star.edu.sg/luot/wsn-tp.pdf
[120] Zeng, D.; Miyazaki, T.; Song Guo; Tsukahara, T.; Kitamichi, J.;
Hayashi, T., "Evolution of Software-Defined Sensor Networks," Mobile
Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks (MSN), 2013 IEEE Ninth International
Conference on , vol., no., pp.410,413, 11-13 Dec. 2013
[121] Hai Huang; Jiping Zhu; Lei Zhang, "An SDN_based management
framework for IoT devices," Irish Signals & Systems Conference 2014
and 2014 China-Ireland International Conference on Information and
Communications Technologies (ISSC 2014/CIICT 2014). 25th IET ,
vol., no., pp.175,179, 26-27 June 2013
[122] Zhijing Qin; Denker, G.; Giannelli, C.; Bellavista, P.;
Venkatasubramanian, N., "A Software Defined Networking architecture
for the Internet-of-Things," Network Operations and Management
Symposium (NOMS), 2014 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1,9, 5-9 May 2014
[123] Wu, D., Arkhipov, D. I., Asmare, E., Qin, Z., & McCann, J. A.
"UbiFlow: Mobility Management in Urban-scale Software Defined
IoT." INFOCOM, 2015 Proceedings IEEE, May 2015, to appear.
[124] Patouni, E., Merentitis, A., Panagiotopoulos, P., Glentis, A., &
Alonistioti, N. (2013, November). Network Virtualisation Trends:
virtually anything is possible by connecting the unconnected. In Future
Networks and Services (SDN4FNS), 2013 IEEE SDN for (pp. 1-7).
[125] Chowdhury, NM Mosharaf Kabir, and Raouf Boutaba. "A survey of
network virtualization." Computer Networks 54.5 (2010): 862-876.
[126] Omnes, N., Bouillon, M., Fromentoux, G., & Grand, O. (2015,
February). A programmable and virtualized network & IT infrastructure
for the internet of things: How can NFV & SDN help for facing the
upcoming challenges. In Intelligence in Next Generation Networks
(ICIN), 2015 18th International Conference on (pp. 64-69). IEEE
[127] Wood, T.; Ramakrishnan, K.K.; Hwang, J.; Liu, G.; Zhang, W.,
"Toward a software-based network: integrating software defined
networking and network function virtualization," Network, IEEE,
vol.29, no.3, pp.36,41, May-June 2015
[128] Ding, W.; Qi, W.; Wang, J.; Chen, B., "OpenSCaaS: an open service
chain as a service platform toward the integration of SDN and NFV,"
Network, IEEE, vol.29, no.3, pp.30,35, May-June 2015
[129] Neves, P., Computer Standards & Interfaces (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.12.008
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
[130] SELFNET Framework for Self-Organized Network Management in
Virtualized and Software Defined Networks. https://selfnet-5g.eu/
Alexander Galvis (M2009) is Electronics and
Telecommunications engineer from Cauca University,
Colombia, and candidate to MSc. in Engineering from
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Colombia. He is an
Adjunct Professor with the Electronics and
Telecommunications Engineering Department, University of
Antioquia, Colombia. His main research interests include
wireless and mobile communications, software defined
networking, and resource allocation.
Juan F. Botero received the Ph.D. degree in telematics
engineering from the Technical University of Catalonia,
Spain, in 2013. He is an Assistant Professor with the
Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering Department,
University of Antioquia, Colombia. In 2013, he joined GITA
(a research group on applied telecommunications) with the
17
Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering Department.
His main research interests include quality of service, software
defined networking, network virtualization, and resource
allocation.
Lus F. Fletscher is MSc. in Engineering from Universidad
Pontificia Bolivariana, Colombia, and MSc. in Information
Technologies and Advanced Telematics from University of
Murcia, Spain. He is an Assistant Professor with the
Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering Department,
University of Antioquia, Colombia. In 2014, he joined GITA
(a research group on applied telecommunications) with the
Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering Department.
He is currently pursuing doctoral studies in engineering at the
National University, Colombia, and his main research interests
include resource allocation, energy efficiency, software
defined networking, and mobile networks.