OpendaylightEdit
OpenDaylight is an open-source software-defined networking (SDN) controller platform that provides a modular, vendor-neutral foundation for programming and automating networks. Emerging from a collaborative effort under the Linux Foundation, it brings together contributions from multiple industry players and a broad community of developers to enable centralized control over heterogeneous network devices and services. The project emphasizes openness, interoperability, and the ability for enterprises and service providers to build customized orchestration and automation workflows without being locked into a single vendor stack.
OpenDaylight operates within the broader movement of Software-defined networking, which seeks to separate the control plane from the data plane and to provide programmable interfaces for managing complex networks. The platform aims to support a wide range of environments—from data centers and campus networks to service-provider backbones—by providing common APIs, adaptable data models, and pluggable protocol support. Core design goals include interoperability across devices from different vendors and rapid ecosystem innovation through community-driven development.
History and governance
OpenDaylight was formed in the 2010s as a collaborative project under the Linux Foundation to create a common, open platform for network control. The project sought to reduce vendor lock-in and accelerate innovation by combining the strengths of multiple vendors, operators, and researchers. Governance rests on a Technical Steering Committee and a multi-layer community structure that coordinates contributions, releases, and interoperability testing. The project relies on a diverse ecosystem of plug-ins, models, and protocol adapters, all designed to work within a unified control plane.
Over time, OpenDaylight has positioned itself as a core component in a landscape that includes other open and proprietary controllers, such as ONOS. It has also interacted with a broad set of standards and protocols that underlie modern networking, including OpenFlow, NETCONF, YANG, and RESTful interfaces. The project emphasizes ongoing collaboration with the wider ecosystem to maintain compatibility with evolving network devices and management paradigms.
Technical architecture
OpenDaylight adopts a modular, service-oriented architecture that enables organizations to mix and match protocol drivers, data stores, and northbound interfaces. The platform is designed to support a variety of southbound protocols and data models, enabling operators to manage diverse equipment without abandoning open standards.
- Southbound interfaces: The controller can communicate with network devices through multiple protocols, most notably OpenFlow and NETCONF. This plurality allows operators to integrate legacy equipment with newer, software-driven control planes.
- Northbound APIs: Restful APIs and other programmatic interfaces enable automation, orchestration, and integration with higher-level management systems. These northbound interfaces are used to implement custom workflows and service orchestration.
- Data and model management: OpenDaylight supports a model-driven approach, typically leveraging YANG models to describe network services, configurations, and state. This model-driven approach helps stabilize interactions between the control plane and diverse devices.
- Core components: The platform provides a modular runtime with components that handle service abstraction, data persistence, and plugin management. The goal is to let operators implement policy, analytics, and workflow logic without having to rewrite core controller code for every deployment.
Within this architecture, organizations can deploy platform components such as a centralized data store, protocol plug-ins, and applications that implement specific networking policies. The extensible design is intended to support use cases ranging from simple provisioning of virtual networks to large-scale, carrier-grade orchestration.
Adoption and use cases
OpenDaylight has seen activity across several domains:
- Data centers and cloud environments: Operators use OpenDaylight to coordinate virtual networks, automate provisioning, and integrate SDN with fabric automation and virtualization platforms. The project’s open interfaces support interworking with diverse switches and routers found in modern data centers.
- Enterprises and campuses: Universities and large enterprises have explored OpenDaylight for campus networks, where centralized control can simplify policy enforcement, security, and multi-vendor interoperability.
- Service provider and NFV contexts: OpenDaylight has been applied to orchestrate network services and virtualized network functions in environments where operators seek to automate lifecycle management and service chaining across heterogeneous hardware and software stacks.
The open-source nature of OpenDaylight, combined with its vendor-neutral governance, has appealed to organizations seeking to avoid deep dependence on a single vendor while maintaining control over software choices and upgrade cycles. The project also serves as a proving ground for interoperability tests and shared development in areas like Software-defined networking infrastructure and network orchestration, with ties to broader standards and industry initiatives.
Controversies and debates
As with any large, multi-vendor open-source project, OpenDaylight sits at the center of debates about governance, competition, and practicality:
- Vendor neutrality vs governance efficiency: Proponents argue that a multi-vendor, open governance model reduces lock-in and fosters broad interoperability, ultimately benefiting customers through competition and choice. Critics contend that consensus-driven, multi-stakeholder decision-making can slow progress and create friction when aligning on feature sets or timelines. In reaping the benefits of openness, proponents emphasize that robust governance is a feature, not a flaw.
- Security, reliability, and patch cadence: Open-source platforms expose the core of network control to public scrutiny, which many view as a strength for security and accountability. Critics worry about the operational burden on operators to maintain patch cadence and to coordinate updates across a diverse ecosystem of plug-ins and integrations. The counterpoint is that transparent code and collaborative review can improve resilience when properly managed and resourced.
- Fragmentation risk and ecosystem dynamics: By supporting multiple southbound protocols and a variety of plug-ins, there is concern that fragmentation could undermine a cohesive ecosystem. Supporters counter that modularity and openness encourage innovation and prevent vendor stagnation, enabling operators to tailor deployments to specific needs without sacrificing compatibility.
- Public funding and private investment: OpenDaylight’s model blends corporate sponsorship with community contributions. Some observers argue that reliance on industry funding could influence priorities, while others contend that private investment accelerates development and ensures real-world applicability in enterprise and telecom deployments.
- Woke criticisms and debates about open-source: Some pundits frame open-source projects as political or social experiments. From a practical perspective, the core value of OpenDaylight lies in engineering merit—standard interfaces, open collaboration, and the ability to reduce vendor lock-in—rather than ideological aims. Advocates of open, standards-based control emphasize that interoperability and competitive markets benefit customers and spur innovation more effectively than proprietary, single-vendor solutions.