Software-Defined Networking in Modern Networks: A Systematic Literature Review of Architectures, Benefits, and Deployment Challenges (2020–2026)

References

[1] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

[2] Kitchenham B, Charters S. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. Keele University and Durham University; 2007.

[3] Hu F, Hao Q, Bao K. A survey on software-defined network and OpenFlow: From concept to implementation. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 2014;16(4):2181–2206. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2326417

[4] Barakabitze AA, Ahmad A, Mijumbi R, Hines A. 5G network slicing using SDN and NFV: A survey of taxonomy, architectures and future challenges. Computer Networks. 2020;167:106984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2019.106984

[5] Ferguson AD, Gribble S, Hong CY, Killian C, Mohsin W, Muehe H, et al. Orion: Google's software-defined networking control plane. In: Proceedings of the 18th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 21); 2021. p. 83–98.

[6] Hussein A, Chahad L, Adalian N, Chehab A, Elhajj IH, Kayssi A. Software-defined networking (SDN): The security review. Journal of Cyber Security Technology. 2020;4(1):1–66.

[7] Ahuja N, Singal G, Mukhopadhyay D, Kumar N. Automated DDoS attack detection in software defined networking. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 2021;187:103108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103108

[8] Shinan K, Alsubhi K, Alzahrani A, Ashraf MU. Machine learning-based botnet detection in software-defined network: A systematic review. Symmetry. 2021;13(5):866. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13050866

[9] Bera S, Misra S, Vasilakos AV. Software-defined networking for Internet of Things: A survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 2017;4(6):1994–2008. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2017.2746186

[10] Ordonez-Lucena J, et al. HybCon: Hybrid SDN-based distributed cloud architecture for 5G. IEEE Communications Magazine. 2020;58(7):58–64.

[11] Naseer QK, Raza H, Jeon G. A distributed software defined networking model to improve the scalability and quality of services for flexible green energy internet for smart grid systems. Computers & Electrical Engineering. 2020;87:106634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106634

[12] Bholebawa IZ, Dalal UD. Performance analysis of SDN/OpenFlow controllers: POX versus Floodlight. Wireless Personal Communications. 2018;98(2):1679–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-017-4939-1

[13] Ohri P, Neogi SG. Software-defined networking security challenges and solutions: A comprehensive survey. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems. 2022;12(1):383–400.

[14] Sheikh MNAA, Hwang I, Raza P. Software-defined networking (SDN): A review of architecture, security, and challenges. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(18):10427.

[15] Shafiq S, Rahman MS, Shaon SA, Mahmud I, Sanwar AS. A review of software-defined networking for Internet of Things inclusive of distributed computing, blockchain and mobile network technology: Basics, trends, challenges and applications. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks. 2024;2024:9006405.

[16] Fartitchou A, et al. IOTASDN: IOTA 2.0 smart contracts for securing software-defined networking ecosystem. Sensors. 2024;24(17):5716. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175716

[17] Hussain M, Amin R, Gantassi R, Alshehri AH, Frnda J, Raza SM. Efficient handling of ACL policy change in SDN using reactive and proactive flow rule installation. Scientific Reports. 2024;14:14976. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65721-x

[18] Hodaei A, Babaie S. A survey on traffic management in software-defined networks: Challenges, effective approaches, and potential measures. Wireless Personal Communications. 2021;118(2):1507–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08100-3

[19] Liu YF, Lin KCJ, Tseng CC. Dynamic cluster-based flow management for software defined networks. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. 2022;15(1):361–371. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2019.2943852

[20] Wijesekara N, Gunawardena S, Dias D. Hybrid SDVN: Strategies for incremental SDN adoption. IEEE Access. 2023;11:34512–34526. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3264112

[21] Zoradia B, Indumati G. Comparison of software defined networking with traditional networking using NS2 simulator. International Journal of Information Technology and Security. 2023;15(3):3–14.

[22] Elumalai J, R S. Review of the SDN architecture with various API controllers. In: 2023 International Conference on Research Methodologies in Knowledge Management, Artificial Intelligence and Telecommunication Engineering (RMKMATE); 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/RMKMATE59243.2023.10369709

[23] Amin R, Costanzo A, Alzabin LR, Aqdus A, Kamarulzaman SF, Alshehri AH, et al. An efficient federated learning based defense mechanism for software defined network cyber threats through machine learning models. Scientific Reports. 2025;15:41390. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-25345-1

@article{1724759,
      author = {Awan, Ndi Simon, Eru, Akwuma Nathaniel, Ahiaba, Solomon, Atoyebi, Temitope Olufunmi, Prof. A. Prema Kirubakaran},
      title = {Software-Defined Networking in Modern Networks: A Systematic Literature Review of Architectures, Benefits, and Deployment Challenges (2020–2026)},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {5},
      pages = {979-989},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724759.pdf},
      abstract = {Software-Defined Networking (SDN) separates network control from packet forwarding and exposes programmable interfaces for policy, automation, and traffic engineering. This article systematically synthesizes research on SDN in modern networks published from 2020 to 2026. The review followed PRISMA 2020 reporting principles and searched SciSpace, Google Scholar, and PubMed. From 1,417 records, 492 duplicates were removed, 925 unique records were ranked, 135 full texts were assessed, and 71 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Distributed or hierarchical control was the most frequently reported architecture (48%), followed by centralized (34%) and hybrid arrangements (18%). The most commonly reported benefits were scalability and flexibility (68%), programmability and simplified management (59%), and enhanced security capabilities through centralized visibility (41%). The principal constraints were control-plane scalability (54%), security vulnerabilities (34%), performance limitations under demanding conditions (31%), deployment complexity (27%), and interoperability or standardization deficits (23%). The evidence indicates that SDN is no longer only an experimental networking model; it is an enabling platform for cloud, data-centre, IoT, 5G, wide-area, and vehicular systems. However, dependable adoption requires resilient multi-controller designs, secure control channels, interoperable interfaces, realistic performance validation, and phased migration from legacy infrastructure. The review concludes that hybrid and hierarchical deployments currently offer the most practical balance between centralized programmability and operational resilience.},
      keywords = {Control plane; network programmability; OpenFlow; scalability; security; software-defined networking; systematic literature review},
      month = {November},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/ire1724759}
  }