International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering
Published by Chaoyang University of Technology

Sumit Badotra*, Surya Narayan Panda

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chitkara University, Punjab, India

Download Citation: |
Download PDF


In recent years, SDN has gained a lot of popularity. There is a basic principle behind the growth of SDN which states the separation of the control plane from the data plane. In the data plane, all the network devices constitute whereas in the control plane the core element is situated known as SDN controller. The controller is the integral element of SDN based network. It manages the entire network and maintains the overall functionality. In the last years, there are many SDN controllers came into existence. This paper aims to provide the experimental comparison among the seven most used SDN controllers both in research and industry. The comparison and experimentation analysis is carried out in an emulator tool known as Mininet with four different network topologies (single, linear, tree, custom) and the varied number of nodes (10, 50, 100, 500, 1000). The parameters for comparison are Round Trip Time (minimum, maximum, average) and standard deviation. This paper will prove to be beneficial for the researchers and industry people who are making use of these SDN controllers, it will help them to choose a particular controller and analyze their performance against the selected network topologies and number of hosts.

Keywords: SDN controllers, Network topology, Nodes, Performance, Analysis.

Share this article with your colleagues



  1. Al-Somaidai, M.B., Yahya, E.B. 2014. Survey of software components to emulate OpenFlow protocol as an SDN implementation. American Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 3, 74–82.

  2. Badotra, S., Panda, S.N. 2019. Evaluation and comparison of OpenDayLight and open networking operating system in software-defined networking. Cluster Computing, 1–11.

  3. Badotra, S., Panda, S.N. 2020. Software-defined networking: A novel approach to networks. In Handbook of Computer Networks and Cyber Security 313–339. Springer, Cham.

  4. Badotra, S., Singh, J. 2017. A review paper on software defined networking. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8.

  5. Badotra, S., Singh, J. 2017. Open daylight as a controller for software defined networking. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 8.

  6. Badotra, S., Singh, J. 2019. Creating firewall in transport layer and application layer using software defined networking. In Innovations in Computer Science and Engineering, 95–103. Springer, Singapore.

  7. Berde, P., Gerola, M., Hart, J., Higuchi, Y., Kobayashi, M., Koide, T., Parulkar, G. 2014, August. ONOS: towards an open, distributed SDN OS. In Proceedings of the third workshop on Hot topics in software defined networking, 1–6.

  8. de Almeida Amazonas, J.R., Santos-Boada, G., Solé-Pareta, J. 2014, July. A critical review of OpenFlow/SDN-based networks. In 2014 16th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), 1–5. IEEE.

  9. Fernandez, M. 2013, January. Evaluating OpenFlow controller paradigms. In ICN 2013, The Twelfth International Conference on Networks, 151–157.

  10. Horvath, R., Nedbal, D., Stieninger, M. 2015. A literature review on challenges and effects of software defined networking. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 552–561.

  11. Khondoker R, Zaalouk A, Marx R, Bayarou A. 2014. Feature-based comparison and selection of software defined networking (SDN) controllers, World Congress on IEEE on Computer Applications and Information Systems (WCCAIS), 1–7.

  12. Morales, L.V., Murillo, A.F., Rueda, S.J. 2015, September. Extending the floodlight controller. In 2015 IEEE 14th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, 126–133. IEEE.

  13. Papavassiliou, S. 2020. Software defined networking (SDN) and network function virtualization (NFV).

  14. Prete, L.R., Shinoda, A.A., Schweitzer, C.M., de Oliveira, R.L.S. 2014, June. Simulation in an SDN network scenario using the Pox Controller. In 2014 IEEE Colombian Conference on Communications and Computing (COLCOM), 1–6. Ieee.

  15. Priya, A.V., Radhika, N. 2019. Performance comparison of SDN OpenFlow controllers. International Journal of Computer Aided Engineering and Technology, 11, 467–479.

  16. Rowshanrad, S., Abdi, V., Keshtgari, M. 2016. Performance evaluation of SDN controllers: Floodlight and OpenDaylight. IIUM Engineering Journal, 17, 47–57.

  17. Rowshanrad, S., Namvarasl, S., Abdi, V., Hajizadeh, M., Keshtgary, M. 2014. A survey on SDN, the future of networking. Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Technology, 3, 232–248.

  18. Shah, S.A., Faiz, J., Farooq, M., Shafi, A., Mehdi, S.A. 2013, June. An architectural evaluation of SDN controllers. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), 3504–3508. IEEE.

  19. Shalimov, A., Zuikov, D., Zimarina, D., Pashkov, V., Smeliansky, R. 2013. Advanced study of SDN/OpenFlow controllers. Proceedings of the 9th Central & Eastern European Software Engineering Conference, ACM, 1–6.

  20. Zhang, X., Hou, W.G., Han, P.C., Guo, L. 2014. Design and implementation of the routing function in the nox controller for software-defined networks. In Applied Mechanics and Materials, 635, 1540–1543. Trans Tech Publications Ltd.


Received: 2020-04-28
Revised: 2020-06-03
Accepted: 2020-06-17
Available Online: 2020-12-01

Cite this article:

Badotra, S., Panda, S.N. 2020. Experimental comparison and evaluation of various OpenFlow software defined networking controllers. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, 17, 317–324.

  Copyright The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.