# Deploying Secure Distributed Systems: Comparative Analysis of GNS3 and SEED Internet Emulator
## 3 Methodology  
This section presents the six-step methodology (Figure 1) used in this research:  
1. **Literature review**: Firstly, we conducted a comprehensive review of recent and relevant academic literature in the field of network emulation. We explored emerging network emulation platforms and identified opportunities for hybrid emulation configuration and deployment.
2. **Network design and development**: We built and configured a six-node network on different platforms: physical, GNS3, the SEED Internet Emulator, and hybrid, creating a data center topology. To maintain consistency, we utilized Cisco CLM appliances as routers in GNS3, programmatic nodes in the SEED Internet Emulator, and physical devices in the physical network using the OSPF protocol. The data center architecture was chosen for its widespread use and relevance in data center network construction, as highlighted by [PERSON] et al. [41]. This model consisted of three layers: the core layer, distribution layer, and access layer. We employed a NAT node to provide outside Internet connectivity using one of the Network Interface Cards (NICs) on the host server. The host server connects to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) through a TP-Link Powerline. When connecting the hybrid system, we used the Cloud Node to connect to other devices using the OSPF protocol for dynamic routing. Additionally, we developed the same network topology in Python using the Internet Emulator platforms and Docker containers. This allowed us to build a six-node emulated network that uses the OSPF protocol, designed to the same specification as the GNS3 network. Once completed, we created a solution using physical Cisco routers and the GNS3 network with the OSPF protocol, along with a bridged network adapter supporting Network Address Translation (NAT). The network design is shown in Figure 2, representing a data center model that can be further expanded into a Campus Area Network (CAN) model consisting of conceptually different locations across a campus.
3. **Data collection and analysis**: In this step, we employed automated scripts for data collection: using bash for the Internet Emulator under Linux and the proprietary Cisco TCLsh for the GNS3 network and the physical Cisco appliances. These scripts enable systematic and reliable data collection while minimizing measurement errors. We executed the scripts by repeating the measurements 1000 times. Once completed, we conducted a statistical analysis to compute latency metrics such as the minimum, maximum, average, median, and standard deviation, as well as jitter.
4. **Energy efficiency and cost analysis**: In this step, we considered two additional criteria for the networks regarding economic benefits. We compared the energy consumption of all network models and performed a cost analysis to understand the economic implications of adopting these networks in a business context.
5. **Network comparison**: In this step, we compared the performance of the network models and platforms to identify their advantages, constraints, and limitations. By analyzing and presenting the performance criteria, we can make comparisons to the SEED Internet Emulator, GNS3, physical, and hybrid solutions to begin identifying meaningful adoption based on the results.
6. **Evaluation and recommendations**: After completing the experiments and the network comparison, we performed an overall evaluation and provide recommendations based on the comparison of the various network models.  
Figure 1: Research Methodology.