Artificial Intelligence Enabled Routing in Software Defined Networking

Abstract

Software defined networking (SDN) is an emerging networking architecture that separates the control plane from the data plane and moves network management to a central point, called the controller. The controller is responsible for preparing the flow tables of each switch in the data plane. Although dynamic routing can perform rerouting in case of congestion by periodically monitoring the status of each data flow, problems concerning a suitable monitoring period duration and lack of learning ability from past experiences to avoid similar but ineffective route decisions remain unsolved. This paper presents an artificial intelligence enabled routing (AIER) mechanism with congestion avoidance in SDN, which can not only alleviate the impact of monitoring periods with dynamic routing, but also provide learning ability and superior route decisions by introducing artificial intelligence (AI) technology. We evaluate the performance of the proposed AIER mechanism on the Mininet simulator by installing three additional modules, namely, topology discovery, monitoring period, and an artificial neural network, in the control plane. The effectiveness and superiority of our proposed AIER mechanism are demonstrated by performance metrics, including average throughput, packet loss ratio, and packet delay versus data rate for different monitoring periods in the system.

1. Introduction

1.1. Software-Defined Networking

The revolutionary technology of radio access network (RAN) in each generation is obvious from the first generation of mobile communications (1G) to the fifth generation of mobile communications (5G) and beyond, but the revolution is not in core network (CN) technology. Only the 3G era has experienced a major change from circuit switching to packet switching. Considering that global operators have invested huge funds in the previous CN technology, the CN technology revolution at the 3G stage allows the two switching modes to coexist and make the operators freely choose to adopt circuit or packet switching mode until the 4G era comes, which is officially integrated into the all-IP (Internet Protocol) packet switching core network system. With the growing demands for wireless mobile communications in the Internet of things (IoT) society after 2020, 5G is regarded as a revolutionary technology with great hopes and an innovation in the RAN technology. As to the CN technology in 5G, it is expected to meet the needs of the rapid development of various services that include a wide range of data and connections in the future, and to ultimately meet the user-centric wireless communications. One of the most important key to networking requirements is the development of two technologies, software-defined networking (SDN) and network-function virtualization (NFV) [1]. SDN is a kind of control signaling and user data separation, centralized control of network functions, and open application interface (API). After the introduction of SDN, the new challenges are how to reconstruct network functions, how to design new interface protocols, and then optimize the architecture and end-to-end signaling process based on SDN. Similar to some concepts of SDN, NFV uses cloud virtualization-based information technologies to transform 4G/5G core network, using general purpose platform (GPP) to build the basic telecommunications environment. Focusing on applying artificial intelligence (AI) technology to CN routing, this paper presents an AI-enabled routing scheme specifically for SDN because the core concepts of both SDN and NFV technologies are quite similar and the two have high conditions for complementary integration. Based on SDN architecture, several works have been proposed to successfully overcome the limitations regarding the de-facto standard simulator, Mininet [2], or the implementation of multi-domain connectivity services [3,4,5,6,7].

SDN is an emerging networking architecture that consists of three layers [8,9], namely, the application, control, and data planes (see Figure 1). SDN is programmable through logically centralized management to simplify complex network tasks, such as route optimization, traffic engineering and so on for increasingly diversified network deployment. The SDN control plane is required to discover a network topology of the entire SDN infrastructure mainly for configuring data transmission paths between any source-to-destination pairs in the data plane. However, discovering a network topology is challenging due to frequent migration of the virtual machines in the data plane, lack of authentication standards, and so on. For the purpose, the authors of [10] have presented a comprehensive survey of the topology discovery and the associated security implications in SDNs. The application programming interface that resides between the control and application planes is called the northbound interface, where a set of network services such as quality of service (QoS), intrusion detection, and monitoring functions can be implemented. Communication interface between the control and data planes is called the southbound interface, where the OpenFlow protocol [11] is commonly used to exchange control messages with forwarding devices, referred to as OpenFlow switches. An OpenFlow switch comprises one or more flow tables, a group table, and an OpenFlow channel for the external controller. OpenFlow switches handle arriving packets by checking if any flow entries in their flow tables match the new arriving packets and whether or not to perform forwarding. A flow table consists of a set of flow entries. Using the OpenFlow protocol, the controller in the control plane can add, update, and delete flow entries in the flow table(s) of an OpenFlow switch via the OpenFlow channel. Figure 2 shows the six main components of flow entry, namely, match fields, priority, counters, instructions, timeouts, and cookies [12]. “Match fields” are used to match the ingress port number and part of the information contained in the packet header. Flow entries match packets in “priority” order, to the first matching entry being used in each table. If a matching entry is found, then “instructions” associated with the specific flow entry are executed. “Counters” are updated simultaneously when packets are matched. If no match is found, then the forwarding decision will depend on the configuration of the table-miss flow entry. “Timeouts” indicate the maximum amount of time or idle time before the expiration of the flow entry. The “cookie” falls under opaque data, which may be used by the controller to filter, modify, or delete flow statistics, but not to process packets.

1.2. Artificial Intelligence Enabled Routing

Notably, in the recent decade, performance has improved in numerous fields with the application of artificial intelligence (AI) technology [13]. The networking field is no exception. The well-known Turing test [14] considers machines intelligent if humans cannot distinguish them from a man when talking to them. In 1980, John Searle classified AI into strong and weak types [15]. A strong AI has a complex algorithm that can help it act in different situations, whereas the actions of a weak AI are preprogrammed by a person. In other words, strong AI-enabled machines have the ability to apply intelligence to any problem rather than only specific problems, whereas weak AI-enabled machines can only simulate human behavior. As illustrated in Figure 3, machine learning (ML), which describes a methodology implementing AI, is a growing subfield of AI [16]. Support vector machines (SVMs) [17], decision trees [18], random forests [19], artificial neural networks (ANNs) [20], and so on have been presented sequentially as ML technologies. As to deep learning (DL), it is a family of machine learning methods based on ANNs with representation learning. Learning can be supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. The “deep“ in DL comes from that two or more hidden layers are used in the network. In other words, an unbounded number of layers of bounded size constitute an ANN model, which allows practical application and optimized implementation while retaining theoretical universality under mild conditions [21].

An ANN mainly simulates human brain nerves using mathematical models. In contrast to human brain nerves (see Figure 4a), inputs x₁, x₂, and x₃ of an ANN (see Figure 4b) simulate human brain nerve dendrites; weights w₁, w₂, and w₃ of an ANN simulate axons; and the deviation value of an ANN (denoted by b) simulates a synapse, which is a critical action value of a neuron. Equation (1) represents the operation mode of one neuron, where y denotes the output. To handle complex nonlinear problems, Equation (1) is further substituted with an activation function to form a differentiable nonlinear function, as expressed by Equation (2). Through the backpropagation algorithm (BPA) [22], the optimization gradient descent method can be used to continuously iteratively compute and update the weights in the ANN model such that the model output can approach the expected value, that is, the corresponding label data (designated as y_i’), until the error function (see Equation (3)) converges.

(1)$y=x_1{w}_1+x_2{w}_2+x_3{w}_3$

(2)$y=Activationfunction(x_1{w}_1+x_2{w}_2+x_3{w}_3)$

(3)$Lossfunction={\displaystyle {\sum }_{i=0}{(y_i-y_i{}^{\prime })}^2}$

where i indicates the i-th record of training data.

Since the layers of an ANN in DL are allowed to be heterogeneous and to deviate widely from biologically informed connectionist models for the sake of efficiency, trainability, and understandability, this paper presents an AI-enabled routing (AIER) mechanism with congestion avoidance by introducing an ANN model in the control plane of SDN for intelligent path selection. The successful application of ANNs for the AIER not only can alleviate the impact of monitoring periods with dynamic routing but also can provide the learning ability to make superior routing decisions from past experiences. It is also demonstrated that the proposed AIER outperforms the SDN routing schemes with no AI application via simulations. The significant improvement in the average throughput, packet loss ratio, and packet delay versus data rate for different monitoring periods in the system can be observed.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses works related to our proposed AIER mechanism in SDN, and the proposed AIER scheme is elaborated in Section 3. Simulation results and performance evaluation discussions are presented in Section 4. Finally, concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

2. Related Works

Packets passing through a route from source to destination nodes encounter various delay types [23], such as processing, queuing, transmission, and propagation delays. Packet delay causes packet loss and throughput degradation during transmission. SDN routing schemes are generally classified into two types, namely, static and dynamic. With static routing, the well-known Dijkstra algorithm [24] considered only edge weights in the associated network topology to find the shortest path for data transmission. The authors of [25] extended the Dijkstra algorithm by taking into account node weights to select a route that is better than the shortest path in terms of distance. Besides, the authors of [26] used depth-first search to find multiple paths from source-to-destination nodes in a hierarchical network topology then determined the best path using worst-fit searching. However, a selected route will not change with static routing unless a link breakup is detected.

To avoid excessive single-link burden and packet loss caused by static routing due to diversified network conditions, such as burst traffic, link breakups, and device crashes, dynamic routing schemes have been proposed. Lan et al. [27] proposed a dynamic routing scheme with load-balanced path configuration. Song et al. [28] calculated each path utilization at the controller with link utilizations being received periodically from the data plane, and then changed the forwarding path, if necessary. The authors of [29] presented an effective dynamic routing mechanism with which the controller is aware of each link status and connected port number between any two switches in the data plane through the link layer discovery protocol [30]. The connected port number was then used to configure the corresponding flow entry on each switch according to a route selection algorithm. To reduce packet loss during path reconfiguration, rerouting was triggered when the link utilization of the current path exceeds 80%.

Although dynamic routing can perform rerouting under certain pre-defined conditions by periodically monitoring the status of each data flow, problems concerning a suitable monitoring period duration and the lack of learning ability from past experiences to avoid similar but ineffective path decisions remain unsolved. The authors of [31] emphasized that the monitoring period duration has a significant impact on network performance. A monitoring period that is too short may cause excessive communication burden on the southbound interface. By contrast, a monitoring period that is too long may cause the control plane to obtain outdated information from the data plane. Therefore, the monitoring period duration is crucial for dynamic routing. Besides, the configuration of an alternative path in the data plane is time consuming. That is, data transmission through the original path may result in packet loss due to link congestion before the completion of the alternative path configuration. Furthermore, the system traffic load usually varies with time. Given Figure 5 as an example, the selected path can afford data transmission from 10 to 50 s in the case of light load. However, the selected path may cause congestion in the case of heavy load at about 60 s. Although the control plane can find an alternative path to alleviate congestion, the alternative path will be rerouted to the previously-selected path due to the shortest path selection from 70 to 110 s. At approximately 120 s, link congestion may occur again in the case of heavy load. Meanwhile, an alternative path same as the one decided at 60 s is selected again. In other words, dynamic routing schemes are blind to past experiences and thus lack learning abilities.

In recent years, several routing mechanisms [32,33,34,35,36,37,38] combined with AI technology have been proposed to enhance learning ability from past experiences and smart route-decision capability, thereby improving overall network performance. First of all, the works in [33,34,35] introduced AI technology to routing protocols for wireless sensor networks in order to improve the energy consumption of each node. On the other hand, the authors of [36] implemented an intelligent routing protocol in a particular, simple SDN topology. Their proposed intelligent routing protocol was based on the reinforcement learning process to choose the best data transmission paths according to the best criteria in terms of weights periodically rewarded by each node on the current path. However, a formula associated with the cost function was not specifically defined and the impact of rewarding periods was not considered. Pasca et al. [37] proposed an application-aware multipath flow routing framework (AMPS) by enabling the controller of SDN to prioritize each flow using machine learning techniques and to assign one or more paths based on its classified priority even if the flow are between the same pair of nodes. The main contribution of AMPS controller in comparison to SDN with traditional routing is its ensuring high availability of an unloaded path for high priority flows even in a heavily loaded network. Fu et al. [38] presented a routing strategy based on deep Q-learning (DQL) to generate optimal routing paths autonomously for SDN-based data center networks. However, they aimed to provide different quality of service guarantees for mice-flows and elephant-flows, designated in a data center network.

The aforementioned works have obtained considerable improvement on network performance by introducing AI technology. To avoid network congestion that may cause serious packet delay, packet loss and throughput degradation, this paper proposes an AIER mechanism by introducing an ANN model to the controller of SDN that uses flow load and link load as the feature data, and queuing size of an OpenFlow switch as label data. The proposed AIER mechanism consists of three stages: (1) collection of a set of adequate data for model training, (2) establishment of an ANN model in the control plane using the training data, and (3) application of the ANN model for path selection.

3. Proposed AIER Mechanism

3.1. System Architecture

The SDN architecture we consider is illustrated in Figure 6. The routing module in the application plane is used to find the route between any source-to-destination pairs at the beginning. In the control plane, the well-established Ryu controller [39] is adopted. There are three modules in the controller, topology discovery, period monitor, and an ANN model, which are used to explore the link states of the OpenFlow switches, periodically receive the exchange information from the data plane, and implement the proposed AIER mechanism to select an intelligent path with congestion avoidance, respectively. The data plane consists of n source nodes (denoted as S₁, S₂, …, S_n), m destination nodes (denoted as D₁, D₂, …, D_m), and a number of OpenFlow switches. Therefore, we assume that a maximum of m∙n (denoted as d) data flows are generated and a total of R paths between any source-to-destination pairs are available.

3.2. AIER Mechanism

Assuming that there are no link fabrication attacks and no migration of OpenFlow switches [40], the proposed AIER mechanism adds an ANN model in the SDN controller. First, the AIER mechanism collects a set of training data in which each record consists of feature data and label data. Next, the training data are used to train the ANN model, iteratively. The routing algorithm obtains learning abilities after model training has been completed. Thus, the AIER mechanism not only can predict the corresponding output based on the new data but also can select a suitable path to avoid congestion. Figure 7 shows the pseudo code of the proposed AIER mechanism, which includes the following three stages.

3.2.1. Collection of Training Data

Prior to training the ANN model, an adequately large set of training data is collected in which each record contains a congestion flag, the generation rates of all data flows, and every allocated path from a source to a destination. As illustrated in Figure 8, let n = 3, m = 1, and R = 3 as an example. Table 1 shows the training data set, including every field of each record and several data samples. Field “C” can be 1 or 0 depending on whether there exists one or more OpenFlow switch whose queuing length is larger than 80% along the allocated path. If yes, then C is 1; otherwise, C is 0. The d fields immediately following from Field “C” represent the data generation rates of d data flows. The last d fields indicate the allocated path number (belonging to {0, 1, 2}) for each data flow.

3.2.2. ANN Model Training

After the first stage is complete, we use the BPA algorithm [22] to train the ANN model. The training data require preprocessing before the model is trained. Separating the label data and feature data in the training data set, we consider Field “C” as the label data (in red) and the other fields as the feature data (in blue), as shown in Table 2. The feature data of each record are the inputs of a neuron model, whereas the label data of each record are used for error computation with respect to the output of a neuron model. Furthermore, we need to normalize the feature data such that their values range from 0 to 1. Next, the training data set is randomly divided into a training data subset and a test data subset on the principle that the former subset is much larger than the latter subset. The training data subset is used to train the ANN model, whereas the test data subset is used to verify the accuracy of the trained ANN model. Generally, accuracy should be at least 0.8.

3.2.3. Application of the ANN Model

Because there are 3 source-to-destination pairs and 3 available paths, there exist 3³ possible path configuration outcomes. The ANN model trained in the preceding stage is employed for path configuration in the controller, and the congestion probability, which is denoted by C_k for each path configuration k, is calculated, as summarized in Table 3. Assuming that the current path configuration is {0, 0, 0}, if any congestion probabilities lower than the current path configuration by a predefined threshold (denoted as Th), for example, 20%, exist, the controller will replace the current path configuration with one with the smallest congestion possibility. For instance, the new path configuration will be {2, 2, 1} in Table 3. The controller is responsible for forwarding the new path configuration through the southbound interface to the OpenFlow switches in the data plane. The predefined threshold Th can avoid the so called ping-pong effect. Moreover, the AIER mechanism can periodically monitor the queuing length of each OpenFlow switch for the current path configuration to avoid potentially inaccurate output in the trained ANN model. If any queuing length of an OpenFlow switch is greater than 80%, then path reconfiguration is triggered.

4. Performance Evaluation

4.1. Simulation Settings

The parameters and their values used in the simulation are summarized in Table 4. The routing module in the application plane uses the Dijkstra algorithm. The communication interface between the data and control planes uses OpenFlow Protocol V1.3. The network topology of the data plane, as illustrated in Figure 9, consists of three source nodes, one destination node, and 9 available transmission paths. Therefore, a total of 729 path configuration outcomes are obtained. We use the Iperf [41] tool to generate UDP flows at data rates varying from 70 Mbps to 150 Mbps. The bandwidth of each link is 250 Mbps. The buffer size of each OpenFlow switch is 200 packets. The monitoring period is fixed at 3, 5, or 10 s.

A multilayer perceptron (MLP), which consists of an input layer, an output layer, and at least one hidden layer, is used as an ANN model in the control plane. Figure 10 depicts multiple nodes for the input layer and only one node for the output layer. The number of neutrons at the two hidden layers varies from 100 to 200, which are used to evaluate the accuracy of the ANN model. First, we collect 65,000 data records to train the ANN model. The training data are 80% of the 65,000 data records, and the remaining 13,000 data records are the validation data. The accuracy of the trained model with 120 and 140 neutrons at the first and second hidden layers, respectively, can be approximated at 82%. Considering both performance advantages and computational complexity [42], 120 and 140 neutrons at the first and second hidden layers, respectively, are adopted for the ANN model.

4.2. Results and Discussions

The performance of the proposed AIER mechanism is compared with that of static and dynamic routing schemes by varying the data rate of each source-to-destination pair. Performance measures include the average throughput, packet loss ratio, and packet delay for different monitoring periods (3, 5, or 10 s). The effectiveness and superiority of the AIER mechanism are demonstrated by the simulation results.

Figure 11 shows the average throughput of each flow versus data rate for different monitoring periods. The average throughput with static routing is the smallest among the three schemes and descends to the increasing data rate regardless of the monitoring period. This phenomenon is because all data flows send their data through the same path due to the shortest path selection. Unlike static routing, dynamic routing can change transmission paths periodically if a predefined congestion condition occurs. In contrast to the AIER mechanism, no increasing amount is observed in the average throughput with dynamic routing when data rate is increased, as packet loss occurs before path reconfiguration is complete. In other words, the AIER mechanism is not influenced much by the monitoring period duration. Besides, the AIER mechanism has a smaller path reconfiguration frequency than dynamic routing, as the former scheme can perform more suitable path configuration as soon as possible. Thus, the AIER mechanism performs better in terms of average throughput than either static or dynamic routing. Figure 12 shows packet delay versus data rate for different monitoring periods. Similar to the aforementioned elaboration, the AIER mechanism exhibits better performance in packet delay compared with the other two routing schemes, particularly when the network load is heavy. This is because the AIER mechanism is capable of predicting better paths for each flow from past experiences.

Regarding packet loss performance, Figure 13 presents packet loss ratio versus data rate for different monitoring periods. Packet loss ratio increases as the data rate grows. Each link bandwidth is 250 Mbps; thus, the data rate of each flow reaching approximately 70 Mbps begins to cause excessive single-link burden and packet loss owing to the shortest path selection. However, dynamic routing can adjust path allocation periodically to alleviate congestion in the shortest path. Hence, it has a smaller packet loss ratio compared with static routing. It is noteworthy Figure 13 illustrates that nearly no packet loss is observed with the AIER mechanism until the data rate of each flow increases to 120 Mbps. Thus, the AIER mechanism demonstrates a significant improvement in packet loss owing to its intelligent path selection design with congestion avoidance.

5. Conclusions

This paper successfully introduces an ANN in the SDN control plane for intelligent path selection with congestion avoidance. The proposed AIER mechanism not only can alleviate the impact of monitoring periods with dynamic routing but also can provide learning ability from past experiences by integrating AI technology. The AIER mechanism consists of three stages: (1) collection of a set of adequate data for training, (2) establishment of an ANN model in the control plane with the training data, and (3) application of the ANN model for path selection. After the ANN model is trained, the controller can perform more suitable path configuration according to the current data flow traffic and link load. The effectiveness and superiority of our proposed AIER mechanism are demonstrated by performing simulations on the Mininet simulator. The simulation results show that the AIER mechanism considerably outperforms static and dynamic routing schemes in terms of average throughput, packet delay, and packet loss ratio. In future works, we will design an intelligent routing scheme that considers link breakup between any two OpenFlow switches as feature data, except for data flow traffic and link load, to enhance the comprehensiveness of the ANN model.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-J.W. and W.-S.H.; methodology, Y.-J.W. and P.-C.H.; software, P.-C.H. and M.-H.C.; validation, Y.-J.W. and P.-C.H.; formal analysis, Y.-J.W., P.-C.H. and W.-S.H.; investigation, Y.-J.W., P.-C.H., W.-S.H., and M.-H.C.; data curation, P.-C.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-J.W. and P.-C.H.; writing—review and editing, Y.-J.W.; supervision, W.-S.H.; project administration, W.-S.H.; funding acquisition, Y.-J.W. and W.-S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology under the Grant No. MOST-109-2221-E-992-063. And, the APC was supported in part by the USC intramural project with the Grant No. 109-08-01003.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Software defined networking (SDN) architecture.

Figure 2. Main components of flow entry.

Figure 3. Evolution of artificial intelligence (AI).

Figure 4. (a) A neuron of Human brain nerves; (b) ANN model for simulating a neuron.

Figure 5. Example of the system load vs. time.

Figure 6. Software-defined networking (SDN) architecture with the proposed artificial intelligence enabled routing (AIER).

Figure 7. Pseudo code of the artificial intelligence enabled routing (AIER) mechanism.

Figure 8. Example of the data plane in SDN.

Figure 9. The SDN data plane used in the simulation.

Figure 10. ANN model (a four-layer multilayer perceptron (MLP)).

Figure 11. Average flow throughput vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Figure 11. Average flow throughput vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Figure 12. Packet delay vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Figure 12. Packet delay vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Figure 13. Packet loss ratio vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Figure 13. Packet loss ratio vs. data rate for different monitoring periods. (a) Monitoring period = 3 s; (b) Monitoring period = 5 s; (c) Monitoring period = 10 s.

Table 1

Fields in the training data set.

C Congestion Flag	S1-D1 Data Flow	S2-D1 Data Flow	S3-D1 Data Flow	S1-D1 Allocated Path Number	S2-D1 Allocated Path Number	S3-D1 Allocated Path Number
0	57M	55M	70M	0	1	2
1	65M	63M	30M	0	0	1
0	65M	50M	65M	0	2	1

Table 2

Label and feature data after normalization.

C Congestion Flag	S1-D1 Data Flow	S2-D1 Data Flow	S3-D1 Data Flow	S1-D1 Allocated Path Number	S2-D1 Allocated Path Number	S3-D1 Allocated Path Number
0	0.412	0.397	0.731	0.875	0.375	0.325
1	0.687	0.759	0.376	0.875	0.875	0.375
0	0.816	0.302	0.302	0.875	0.325	0.375

Table 3

Congestion probabilities resulted from the trained model.

Configuration k	Data Rate (Mbps)			Path Configuration			Congestion Probability
	S1-D1	S2-D1	S3-D1	S1-D1	S2-D1	S3-D1	Ck
1	70	75	90	0	0	0	0.90
2	70	75	90	0	0	1	0.70
3	70	75	90	0	0	2	0.65
…	…	…	…	…	…	…	…
26	70	75	90	2	2	1	0.55
27	70	75	90	2	2	2	0.80

Table 4

Parameters and values used in the simulation.

Parameters	Values
Simulator	Mininet 2.3.0
SDN protocol	OpenFlow V1.3
Packet generator	Iperf
Traffic type	UDP
Link bandwidth	250 Mbps
Data rate	70 Mbps ~ 150 Mbps
Buffer size	200 packets
Routing module	Dijkstra algorithm
Monitoring period	3, 5, or 10 s
No. of source nodes	3
No. of destination nodes	1
No. of available paths	9