# A Performance Evaluation for Software Defined Networks with P4
## 6 Results and Analysis of Tier 2--Multiple Types of Traffic Running Simultaneously
### Case Study 6--Simultaneous Run over the Internet Topology  
Table 6 presents the data collected during this case study. In Table 6, the ICMP throughput shows an improvement of 6.7% for _SDN+P4_ in comparison to _SDN+OvS_. Table 6 (TCP traffic) records an increase in TCP throughput of 19% from 0.99 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) bps for _SDN+OvS_ to 1.18 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) bps for _SDN+P4_. These are illustrated by the blue lines in Figure 12a,b. Packet loss, packet delay and synchronisation delay for _SDN+P4_ reflect significant reductions in comparison to that achieved using _SDN+OvS_ of 75%, 65% and 45% respectively. The data transmitted achieved a 23% improvement from 0.82 GB for _SDN+OvS_ to 1.01 GB with _SDN+P4_. Table 6 (UDP traffic) records an increase in UDP throughput of 33% from 9 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) bps for _SDN+OvS_ to 1.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{7}\) bps for _SDN+P4_. These are illustrated by the red lines in Figure 12a,b. Packet loss, delay and jitter in _SDN+P4_ reflect significant reductions in comparison to that achieved using _SDN+OvS_ of 69%, 58% and 31% respectively. A reduction in jitter for UDP packets is shown in Figure 12c. The higher speed, reduced delay, jitter and packet loss in _SDN+P4_ result in an increase in data transmission (1.602 GB) for _SDN+P4_ in comparison to (1.456 GB) for _SDN+OvS_. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**a. Performance of ICMP Traffic in Case Study 5**} \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Grid Topology-Mixed Traffic (ICMP)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & _SDN+OvS_ & _SDN+P4_ & **Improvements** \\ \hline Throughput & \(5.85\times 10^{3}\) bps & \(6.3\times 10^{3}\) bps & \(6.7\%\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**b. Performance of TCP Traffic in Case Study 5**} \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Grid Topology-Mixed Traffic (TCP)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & _SDN+OvS_ & _SDN+P4_ & **Improvement** \\ \hline Throughput & \(1.05\times 10^{7}\) bps & \(1.18\times 10^{7}\) bps & \(12\%\) \\ \hline Packet Loss & \(7.9\%\) & \(5\%\) & \((-36\%)\) \\ \hline Delay & \(3.1\) s & \(2.9\)s & \((-6\%)\) \\ \hline Syn Delay & \(2.6\) ms & \(0.6\) ms & \((-77\%)\) \\ \hline Data transmitted & \(1\) GB & \(1\) GB & N/A \\ \hline Total transmission time & \(982.1\) s & \(80\%\) s & \((-18\%)\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**c. Performance of UDP Traffic in Case Study 5**} \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Grid Topology-Mixed Traffic (UDP)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & _SDN+OvS_ & _SDN+P4_ & **Improvement** \\ \hline Throughput & \(7\times 10^{6}\) bps & \(1\times 10^{7}\) bps & \(43\%\) \\ \hline Packet Loss & \(38\%\) & \(10\%\) & \((-73\%)\) \\ \hline Delay & \(1.9157\) s & \(0.4064\) s & \((-78\%)\) \\ \hline Jitter & \(0.480\) ms & \(0.247\) ms & \((-48\%)\) \\ \hline Total transmission time & \(1020\) s & \(800\) s & \((-21\%)\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**d. Performance of CDN Traffic in Case Study 5**} \\ \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Grid Topology-Mixed Traffic (CDN)**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & _SDN+OvS_ & _SDN+P4_ & **Improvement** \\ \hline Throughput & \(3.8\times 10^{5}\) bps & \(4\times 10^{5}\) bps & \(5\%\) \\ \hline Data transmitted & \(588.41\) MB & \(817.54\) MB & \(38\%\) \\ \hline Buffering delay & \(3.11\) s & \(1.91\) s & \((-38\%)\) \\ \hline Jitter & \(0.351\) ms & \(0.33\) ms & \((-5\%)\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Network Performance of for case study 5. Table 6 (CDN traffic) shows an increase in throughput of 44% from 0.97 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) bps in _SDN+Ov5_ to 1.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) bps in _SDN+P4_. This is illustrated by the green line in Figure 12a,b. Higher throughput resulted in _SDN+P4_ transferring more data (1451.3 MB) in comparison to _SDN+Ov5_ (1183.4 MB), an improvement of 23% for the same video file. Buffer delay and jitter in _SDN+P4_ resulted in significant reductions of 61% and 21% respectively, in comparison to _SDN+Ov5_. The reduction in jitter is shown in Figure 12d. The difference in throughput has directly affected the quality of the video.