CA2487344C - Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute - Google Patents
Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2487344C CA2487344C CA2487344A CA2487344A CA2487344C CA 2487344 C CA2487344 C CA 2487344C CA 2487344 A CA2487344 A CA 2487344A CA 2487344 A CA2487344 A CA 2487344A CA 2487344 C CA2487344 C CA 2487344C
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- link
- node
- alternate path
- failure
- backup tunnel
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Expired - Fee Related
Links
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 25
- 238000004891 communication Methods 0.000 claims description 13
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 claims description 10
- 238000005728 strengthening Methods 0.000 abstract description 2
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 4
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000006855 networking Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000835 fiber Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000003287 optical effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000013307 optical fiber Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000008447 perception Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000011664 signaling Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000013589 supplement Substances 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L45/00—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks
- H04L45/28—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks using route fault recovery
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L45/00—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L45/00—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks
- H04L45/22—Alternate routing
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L45/00—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks
- H04L45/50—Routing or path finding of packets in data switching networks using label swapping, e.g. multi-protocol label switch [MPLS]
Abstract
System and methods for distinguishing a node failure from a link failure are provided. By strengthening the assumption of independent failures, bandwidth sharing among backup tunnels protecting links and nodes of a network is facilitated as well as distributed computation of backup tunnel placement.
Thus a backup tunnel overlay network can provide guaranteed bandwidth in the event of a failure.
Thus a backup tunnel overlay network can provide guaranteed bandwidth in the event of a failure.
Description
j DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN LINK AND NODE FAILURE
TO FACILITATE FAST REROUTE
STATEMENT OF RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present application is related to the subject matter of the following pending applications:
U.S. Patent No. 6,978,394 entitled "LINEAR PROGRAM-BASED
TECHNIQUE FOR PLACING FRR TE TUNNELS WITH BANDWIDTH
GUARANTEE," filed on February 22, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966 entitled "IMPLICIT SHARED
BANDWIDTH PROTECTION FOR FAST REROUTE," filed on January 2, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 6,778,492 entitled "LOAD BALANCING FOR FAST
REROUTE BACKUP TUNNELS," filed on January 17, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 7,230,913 entitled "MPLS FAST REROUTE
WITHOUT FULL MESH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING," filed on June 11, 2002.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present application relates to data networking and more particularly to systems and methods for rerouting around failed links and/or nodes.
The Internet and IP networks in general have become key enablers to a broad range of business, government, and personal activities. More and more, the Internet being relied upon as a general information appliance, business communication tool, enterta.inment source, and as a substitute for traditional telephone networks and broadcast media. As the Internet expands its role, users become more and more dependent on uninterrupted access.
To assure rapid recovery in the event of failure of a network link or node, so-called "Fast Reroute" techniques have been developed. In a network
TO FACILITATE FAST REROUTE
STATEMENT OF RELATED APPLICATIONS
The present application is related to the subject matter of the following pending applications:
U.S. Patent No. 6,978,394 entitled "LINEAR PROGRAM-BASED
TECHNIQUE FOR PLACING FRR TE TUNNELS WITH BANDWIDTH
GUARANTEE," filed on February 22, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966 entitled "IMPLICIT SHARED
BANDWIDTH PROTECTION FOR FAST REROUTE," filed on January 2, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 6,778,492 entitled "LOAD BALANCING FOR FAST
REROUTE BACKUP TUNNELS," filed on January 17, 2002;
U.S. Patent No. 7,230,913 entitled "MPLS FAST REROUTE
WITHOUT FULL MESH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING," filed on June 11, 2002.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present application relates to data networking and more particularly to systems and methods for rerouting around failed links and/or nodes.
The Internet and IP networks in general have become key enablers to a broad range of business, government, and personal activities. More and more, the Internet being relied upon as a general information appliance, business communication tool, enterta.inment source, and as a substitute for traditional telephone networks and broadcast media. As the Internet expands its role, users become more and more dependent on uninterrupted access.
To assure rapid recovery in the event of failure of a network link or node, so-called "Fast Reroute" techniques have been developed. In a network
2 employing Fast Reroute, traffic flowing through a failed link or node is rerouted through one or ftiore preconfigured backup tunnels. Redirection of the impacted traffic occurs very quickly to minimize impact on the user experience, typically in tens of milliseconds.
These Fast Reroute techniques have been developed in the context of MPLS Traffic Engineering where traffic flows through label switched paths (LSPs). Typically, the overall network is configured such that traffic flows through guaranteed bandwidth end-to-end "primary" LSPs. It is also possible to establish short primary LSPs in a non-Traffic Engineering network, only for the purpose of taking advantage of Fast Reroute techniques (see above-referenced patent application entitled "MPLS Reroute Without Full Mesh Traffic Engineering.") In either case, when a link or node failure occurs, traffic affected by the failure is rerouted to the preconfigured backup taimels. These backup tunnels are used only for a very short time since simultaneously with the rerouting through the backup tunnels, the head ends of all affected primary LSPs are notified of the failure. This causes the head ends to reroute the primary LSPs around the failures so that the backup tunnels are no longer needed. It is generally assumed that the probability of multiple failures in such a short time is small, so each failure may be considered independently.
Under the independent failure assumption, link bandwidth available for backup tunnels may be shared between backup tunnels protecting different links or nodes. The techniques disclosed in U.S. Patent App. No. 10/038,259 make use of this assumption to allow available backup bandwidth to be shared among links or nodes to be protected while assuring that guaranteed bandwidth requirements continue to be met during Fast Reroute conditions.
On the other hand, without taking advantage of the independent failure assumption, it is very difficult to assure guaranteed bandwidth during failure recovery while using bandwidth resources efficiently.
Mechanisms currently available for failure detection do not always allow the failure of a link to be distinguished from failure of a node. For
These Fast Reroute techniques have been developed in the context of MPLS Traffic Engineering where traffic flows through label switched paths (LSPs). Typically, the overall network is configured such that traffic flows through guaranteed bandwidth end-to-end "primary" LSPs. It is also possible to establish short primary LSPs in a non-Traffic Engineering network, only for the purpose of taking advantage of Fast Reroute techniques (see above-referenced patent application entitled "MPLS Reroute Without Full Mesh Traffic Engineering.") In either case, when a link or node failure occurs, traffic affected by the failure is rerouted to the preconfigured backup taimels. These backup tunnels are used only for a very short time since simultaneously with the rerouting through the backup tunnels, the head ends of all affected primary LSPs are notified of the failure. This causes the head ends to reroute the primary LSPs around the failures so that the backup tunnels are no longer needed. It is generally assumed that the probability of multiple failures in such a short time is small, so each failure may be considered independently.
Under the independent failure assumption, link bandwidth available for backup tunnels may be shared between backup tunnels protecting different links or nodes. The techniques disclosed in U.S. Patent App. No. 10/038,259 make use of this assumption to allow available backup bandwidth to be shared among links or nodes to be protected while assuring that guaranteed bandwidth requirements continue to be met during Fast Reroute conditions.
On the other hand, without taking advantage of the independent failure assumption, it is very difficult to assure guaranteed bandwidth during failure recovery while using bandwidth resources efficiently.
Mechanisms currently available for failure detection do not always allow the failure of a link to be distinguished from failure of a node. For
3 example, a network node may lose communication via a particular link without knowing whether only the link itself has failed or the node to which the link has connected has failed. This ambiguity can cause the network to attempt to reroute around simultaneous failures when in fact only a single failure has occurred. The combined backup bandwidth requirements of simultaneous failures may exceed available backup bandwidth on some links leading to a violation of bandwidth guarantees and possible user perception of deteriorated service.
In theory it would be possible to correct this ambiguity by centrally determining backup tunnels such that no such clash is possible. However, placing this constraint on backup tunnel placement leads to less efficient use of available bandwidth. Furthermore, computing the correct placement of backup tunnels would also become far more complex and computation-intensive.
Furthermore, it is more desirable to compute backup tunnels in a distributed fashion rather than centrally. If backup tunnel computation is to be done in a distributed fashion across the network, the task is made practically impossible due to the need to signal a large amount of backup tunnel information among nodes. If link failures could be distinguished from node failures, the validity of the independent failure assumption would be strengthened, allowing backup tunnels to be computed in a distributed fashion and readily signaled with zero bandwidth in accordance with the techniques disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966 without compromise to bandwidth guarantees.
What is needed are systems and methods for determining whether a link or a neighboring node to which the link connects has failed.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Systems and methods for distinguishing a node failure from a link failure are provided by virtue of one embodiment of the present invention. By strengthening the assumption of independent failures, bandwidth sharing
In theory it would be possible to correct this ambiguity by centrally determining backup tunnels such that no such clash is possible. However, placing this constraint on backup tunnel placement leads to less efficient use of available bandwidth. Furthermore, computing the correct placement of backup tunnels would also become far more complex and computation-intensive.
Furthermore, it is more desirable to compute backup tunnels in a distributed fashion rather than centrally. If backup tunnel computation is to be done in a distributed fashion across the network, the task is made practically impossible due to the need to signal a large amount of backup tunnel information among nodes. If link failures could be distinguished from node failures, the validity of the independent failure assumption would be strengthened, allowing backup tunnels to be computed in a distributed fashion and readily signaled with zero bandwidth in accordance with the techniques disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966 without compromise to bandwidth guarantees.
What is needed are systems and methods for determining whether a link or a neighboring node to which the link connects has failed.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Systems and methods for distinguishing a node failure from a link failure are provided by virtue of one embodiment of the present invention. By strengthening the assumption of independent failures, bandwidth sharing
4 among backup tunnels protecting links and nodes of a network is facilitated as well as distributed computation of backup tunnel placement. Thus a backup tunnel overlay network can provide guaranteed bandwidth in the event of a failure.
One aspect of the present invention provides a method of operating a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to the selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to the selected node through the link. The method includes: pre-configuring an alternate path from the selected node to the neighboring node, the alternate path not including the link, and upon detection of a failure of communication via the link, using the alternate path to verify operation of the neighboring node.
Further understanding of the nature and advantages of the inventions herein may be realized by reference to the remaining portions of the specification and the attached drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE D.R.AWINGS
Fig. 1 depicts a network device according to one embodiment of the present invention.
Fig. 2 depicts a network configuration useful in illustrating embodiments of the present invention.
Fig. 3 is a flowchart describing steps of distinguishing a link failure from a node failure according to one embodiment of the present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS
The present invention will be described with reference to a representative network environment that uses a particular representative combination of protocols to move data through the network. Fig. 2 depicts a particular configuration of network nodes in such an environment. The network nodes are interconnected by links may be implemented using any type of physical medium such as e.g., an optical medium, a wireless medium, twisted pair, etc.
In one embodiment, the nodes of Fig. 2 interoperate in a manner specified by various protocols including, e.g., TCP/IP as known in the art, suitable link layer protocols such as Link Management Protocol (LMP), and
One aspect of the present invention provides a method of operating a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to the selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to the selected node through the link. The method includes: pre-configuring an alternate path from the selected node to the neighboring node, the alternate path not including the link, and upon detection of a failure of communication via the link, using the alternate path to verify operation of the neighboring node.
Further understanding of the nature and advantages of the inventions herein may be realized by reference to the remaining portions of the specification and the attached drawings.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE D.R.AWINGS
Fig. 1 depicts a network device according to one embodiment of the present invention.
Fig. 2 depicts a network configuration useful in illustrating embodiments of the present invention.
Fig. 3 is a flowchart describing steps of distinguishing a link failure from a node failure according to one embodiment of the present invention.
DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS
The present invention will be described with reference to a representative network environment that uses a particular representative combination of protocols to move data through the network. Fig. 2 depicts a particular configuration of network nodes in such an environment. The network nodes are interconnected by links may be implemented using any type of physical medium such as e.g., an optical medium, a wireless medium, twisted pair, etc.
In one embodiment, the nodes of Fig. 2 interoperate in a manner specified by various protocols including, e.g., TCP/IP as known in the art, suitable link layer protocols such as Link Management Protocol (LMP), and
5 protocols defined by the following documents:
E. Rosen, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture," RFC
3031, Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2001.
Braden, et al. "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)-Version 1 Functional Specification," RFC 2205, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1997.
Awduche, et al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS,"
RFC 2702, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1999.
Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE
Extensions," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 2001.
Pan, et al., "Fast Reroute Techniques in RSVP-TE," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 2001.
In one embodiment, the nodes of Fig. 2 are IP routers that implement multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) and essentially operate as label switched routers (LSRs). The nodes of Fig. 2 may also implement MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) and/or Diffserv-Aware Traffic Engineering.
Traffic flows through end-to-end LSPs that are configured to offer guaranteed bandwidth, latency, jitter, etc. This type of environment is, however, merely representative. Embodiments of the present invention are applicable regardless of the properties of traffic carried across the network.
When a given LSP in a network employing MPLS TE experiences a node or link failure, the head-end, i.e., the ingress, will establish a new LSP as a substitute. However, this process requires far longer than desirable.
Accordingly, a local fast reroute capability is provided so that when a node or a link fails, an LSP is temporarily rerouted around the failed link or node while a new end-to-end LSP is being established at the head-end.
E. Rosen, et al., "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture," RFC
3031, Internet Engineering Task Force, January 2001.
Braden, et al. "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)-Version 1 Functional Specification," RFC 2205, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1997.
Awduche, et al., "Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS,"
RFC 2702, Internet Engineering Task Force, September 1999.
Ashwood-Smith, et al., "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE
Extensions," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 2001.
Pan, et al., "Fast Reroute Techniques in RSVP-TE," Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, October 2001.
In one embodiment, the nodes of Fig. 2 are IP routers that implement multiprotocol label switching (MPLS) and essentially operate as label switched routers (LSRs). The nodes of Fig. 2 may also implement MPLS
Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) and/or Diffserv-Aware Traffic Engineering.
Traffic flows through end-to-end LSPs that are configured to offer guaranteed bandwidth, latency, jitter, etc. This type of environment is, however, merely representative. Embodiments of the present invention are applicable regardless of the properties of traffic carried across the network.
When a given LSP in a network employing MPLS TE experiences a node or link failure, the head-end, i.e., the ingress, will establish a new LSP as a substitute. However, this process requires far longer than desirable.
Accordingly, a local fast reroute capability is provided so that when a node or a link fails, an LSP is temporarily rerouted around the failed link or node while a new end-to-end LSP is being established at the head-end.
6 Each link (a bi-directional link is considered as two links with identical endpoints) is protected by one or more backup tunnels that do not include the protected link. A backup tunnel or tunnels may also collectively protect a shared risk link group (SRLG), i.e., a group of links that are expected to experience simultaneous failure because, e.g., they share a common fiber.
Each node is protected by one or more backup tunnels that do not include the protected node.
To assure that bandwidth guarantees continue to be met during fast reroute conditions, backup tunnels are preferably configured with sufficient bandwidth to support all primary traffic through the protected link, SRLG, or node. This is impractical unless one assumes that failures will not be simultaneous and that therefore bandwidth available for backup tunnels may be shared among protected elements. With this assumption, however, backup bandwidth may be guaranteed provided that the backup tunnels protecting any one element do not consume more backup bandwidth than is available.
Further details of configuring and placing backup tunnels are disclosed in U.S.
Patent No. 6,978,394, U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966, and U.S. Patent No.
6,778,492.
A failure of a neighboring node may be detected by the absence of expected RSVP Hello messages. A failure of a link may be detected by, e.g., alarm conditions reported from the physical and/or link layers. When a node fails, it may or may not bring down the links to which it is connected. If a link has failed, a node to which the link connects will detect the link failure but may not realize that the neighboring node at the other end of the failed link may have failed.
To maintain the independent failure assumption, it is desirable that when a link or SRLG fails, traffic is rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) that protect the link or SRLG, and a node fails, traffic is rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) that protect the node. However, to do so, it is necessary to accurately distinguish between link failure and node failure. However, no known prior art mechanism allows distinguishing between different kinds of
Each node is protected by one or more backup tunnels that do not include the protected node.
To assure that bandwidth guarantees continue to be met during fast reroute conditions, backup tunnels are preferably configured with sufficient bandwidth to support all primary traffic through the protected link, SRLG, or node. This is impractical unless one assumes that failures will not be simultaneous and that therefore bandwidth available for backup tunnels may be shared among protected elements. With this assumption, however, backup bandwidth may be guaranteed provided that the backup tunnels protecting any one element do not consume more backup bandwidth than is available.
Further details of configuring and placing backup tunnels are disclosed in U.S.
Patent No. 6,978,394, U.S. Patent No. 7,433,966, and U.S. Patent No.
6,778,492.
A failure of a neighboring node may be detected by the absence of expected RSVP Hello messages. A failure of a link may be detected by, e.g., alarm conditions reported from the physical and/or link layers. When a node fails, it may or may not bring down the links to which it is connected. If a link has failed, a node to which the link connects will detect the link failure but may not realize that the neighboring node at the other end of the failed link may have failed.
To maintain the independent failure assumption, it is desirable that when a link or SRLG fails, traffic is rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) that protect the link or SRLG, and a node fails, traffic is rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) that protect the node. However, to do so, it is necessary to accurately distinguish between link failure and node failure. However, no known prior art mechanism allows distinguishing between different kinds of
7 failures under all circumstances. In particular, if a link failure is detected, it is currently impossible, in most cases, to decide whether it is just this link that failed, or whether the node on the other side of the link failed and caused the failure of its adjacent links as well. As a result, the current equipment simultaneously invokes backup tunnels that are established to protect the link and backup tunnels that are computed to protect the node. If bandwidth guarantees are desired in the presence of failure, then such simultaneous invocation may result in the loss of bandwidth guarantees.
Another example of a similar phenomenon will be described with reference to Fig. 2. Assume that traffic flowing from node K through node J
to node I has a total bandwidth requirement of 1 Mbps. Assume that the link from node M to node N has only 1 Mbps of available backup bandwidth, and that all other links have 10 Mbps bandwidth available for protection. Under the assumption that nodes J and K will not fail simultaneously, this traffic can be protected against failure of node J by establishing a backup tunnel including nodes K, M, N, and I (because the path K-M-N-I has enough bandwidth to accommodate 1 Mbps of traffic flowing from K to J to I).
Assume that traffic flowing from node J through node K to node L also has a total bandwidth requirement of 1 Mbps. This traffic may be protected against failure of node K by establishment of a backup tunnel including nodes J, M, N, and L, because path J, M, N, L has enough bandwidth to accommodate 1 Mbps of traffic flowing from J to K to L. Both nodes J and K can be protected by two different backup tunnels each separately requiring 1 Mbps bandwidth on link MN, which has only 1 Mbps available bandwidth, because the placement of these tunnels assumes that only one of nodes J and K can fail at a time.
However, the inability to reliably distinguish node failures from link failures can cause the backup bandwidth to be exceeded. Consider the case where the link between nodes J and K suffers a bi-directional failure but nodes J and K remain operational. Upon detection of the link failure, node J may behave as if node K has failed and invoke the above-described backup tunnel
Another example of a similar phenomenon will be described with reference to Fig. 2. Assume that traffic flowing from node K through node J
to node I has a total bandwidth requirement of 1 Mbps. Assume that the link from node M to node N has only 1 Mbps of available backup bandwidth, and that all other links have 10 Mbps bandwidth available for protection. Under the assumption that nodes J and K will not fail simultaneously, this traffic can be protected against failure of node J by establishing a backup tunnel including nodes K, M, N, and I (because the path K-M-N-I has enough bandwidth to accommodate 1 Mbps of traffic flowing from K to J to I).
Assume that traffic flowing from node J through node K to node L also has a total bandwidth requirement of 1 Mbps. This traffic may be protected against failure of node K by establishment of a backup tunnel including nodes J, M, N, and L, because path J, M, N, L has enough bandwidth to accommodate 1 Mbps of traffic flowing from J to K to L. Both nodes J and K can be protected by two different backup tunnels each separately requiring 1 Mbps bandwidth on link MN, which has only 1 Mbps available bandwidth, because the placement of these tunnels assumes that only one of nodes J and K can fail at a time.
However, the inability to reliably distinguish node failures from link failures can cause the backup bandwidth to be exceeded. Consider the case where the link between nodes J and K suffers a bi-directional failure but nodes J and K remain operational. Upon detection of the link failure, node J may behave as if node K has failed and invoke the above-described backup tunnel
8 protecting node K. Similarly, node K may detect link failure of the other link direction and behave as if node J has failed, invoking the other backup tunnel described above. Now, both backup tunnels sharing the link from node M to node N are needed and exceed the available backup bandwidth since the independent failure assumption has been implicitly violated even though neither node has actually failed.
According to one embodiment of the present invention, scenarios like those described with reference to Fig. 2 may be avoided by accurately distinguishing between link and node failure at the time of failure and then patching in backup tunnels pre-configured for the failed element. Fig. 3 is a flowchart describing steps of distinguishing between link and node failure and reacting appropriately according to one embodiment of the present invention.
The mechanism described with reference to Fig. 3 provides at each interface for an alternate path for a node to attempt contact with its neighbor once communication through a direct link has been lost. At step 302, this path is preconfigured. Step 302 may be performed as part of the same process that generally establishes backup tunnels and may be performed centrally or in a distributed fashion. For each bi-directional link, two such contact paths are established between the nodes neighboring the link, one for each direction.
The contact paths should preferably not include the direct link, any link in the same SRLG, or any link parallel to this direct link because in case of neighboring node failure, all such parallel links may fail simultaneously, and the alternate contact path would not be available. The contact paths may be backup tunnels such as the ones used to protect nodes and links but requiring only minimal bandwidth. One backup tunnel may provide an alternative contact path for multiple links. It is preferable to establish the contact paths with minimum path length to minimize propagation time. If information is available as to membership in SRLGs, the contact paths should avoid all links in the same SRLG. In one embodiment, the backup tunnels protecting a link are also used to provide the contact path for failure detection purposes.
According to one embodiment of the present invention, scenarios like those described with reference to Fig. 2 may be avoided by accurately distinguishing between link and node failure at the time of failure and then patching in backup tunnels pre-configured for the failed element. Fig. 3 is a flowchart describing steps of distinguishing between link and node failure and reacting appropriately according to one embodiment of the present invention.
The mechanism described with reference to Fig. 3 provides at each interface for an alternate path for a node to attempt contact with its neighbor once communication through a direct link has been lost. At step 302, this path is preconfigured. Step 302 may be performed as part of the same process that generally establishes backup tunnels and may be performed centrally or in a distributed fashion. For each bi-directional link, two such contact paths are established between the nodes neighboring the link, one for each direction.
The contact paths should preferably not include the direct link, any link in the same SRLG, or any link parallel to this direct link because in case of neighboring node failure, all such parallel links may fail simultaneously, and the alternate contact path would not be available. The contact paths may be backup tunnels such as the ones used to protect nodes and links but requiring only minimal bandwidth. One backup tunnel may provide an alternative contact path for multiple links. It is preferable to establish the contact paths with minimum path length to minimize propagation time. If information is available as to membership in SRLGs, the contact paths should avoid all links in the same SRLG. In one embodiment, the backup tunnels protecting a link are also used to provide the contact path for failure detection purposes.
9 A step 304 occurs during network operation. At step 304, a node detects loss of communication via an adjoining link. This detection of failure may arise due to a link layer or physical layer alarm message or due to a loss of the RSVP Hello exchange that is expected along an MPLS TE LSP. In the absence of further information as to whether the link itself has failed or a neighboring node reached though the link has failed, traffic is redirected into the backup tunnel(s) protecting the link at step 306. This is done to minimize restoration time if the failure is indeed a link failure. Then at step 308, the node attempts contact with its neighbor via the alternate path established for this purpose. The contact may be in the form of an RSVP Hello message to which a response is expected. A step 310 tests whether contact is successful.
If contact was successful, a step 312 determines that the node is operational and that the link has failed. Then at step 314, traffic bound for the neighboring node continues to be rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) protecting the failed link.
If contact was unsuccessful, step 316 determines that the neighboring node has failed. The traffic that had previously been shifted to the backup tunnel(s) protecting the link is now shifted to the backup tunnel(s) protecting the neighboring node at step 318.
Step 316 may also be reached if there is an indication (e.g., receipt of a Path Error or RSVP Notify message, etc.) that the backup tunnel protecting the failed link has also failed. In this case, the contact attempt is interrupted and step 310 can be skipped since a neigliboring node failure can be concluded based on the backup tunnel failure.
In an alternative embodiment, the RSVP Hello messages are sent periodically through the alternate path even when no failure has been detected.
In this case, step 310 can operate by checking the status of the ongoing exchange. In situations where propagation delay along the alternate contact path is significant, this can accelerate the determination of whether a node failure or a link failure has occurred. This routine RSVP Hello message exchange via the alternate path may supplement or substitute for RSVP Hello exchange in reaction to a detected failure. Where the link failure detection mechanism is expected to react quickly and the propagation delay over the alternate path is small, it may be preferably to initiate the RSVP Hello 5 exchange via the alternate contact path only in the event of a detected failure.
By contrast, if the propagation delay is large, it may be preferable to rely on routine exchange of RSVP Hellos.
It will be seen that by accurately distinguishing between link and node failure, embodiments of the present invention strengthen the assumption that
If contact was successful, a step 312 determines that the node is operational and that the link has failed. Then at step 314, traffic bound for the neighboring node continues to be rerouted through the backup tunnel(s) protecting the failed link.
If contact was unsuccessful, step 316 determines that the neighboring node has failed. The traffic that had previously been shifted to the backup tunnel(s) protecting the link is now shifted to the backup tunnel(s) protecting the neighboring node at step 318.
Step 316 may also be reached if there is an indication (e.g., receipt of a Path Error or RSVP Notify message, etc.) that the backup tunnel protecting the failed link has also failed. In this case, the contact attempt is interrupted and step 310 can be skipped since a neigliboring node failure can be concluded based on the backup tunnel failure.
In an alternative embodiment, the RSVP Hello messages are sent periodically through the alternate path even when no failure has been detected.
In this case, step 310 can operate by checking the status of the ongoing exchange. In situations where propagation delay along the alternate contact path is significant, this can accelerate the determination of whether a node failure or a link failure has occurred. This routine RSVP Hello message exchange via the alternate path may supplement or substitute for RSVP Hello exchange in reaction to a detected failure. Where the link failure detection mechanism is expected to react quickly and the propagation delay over the alternate path is small, it may be preferably to initiate the RSVP Hello 5 exchange via the alternate contact path only in the event of a detected failure.
By contrast, if the propagation delay is large, it may be preferable to rely on routine exchange of RSVP Hellos.
It will be seen that by accurately distinguishing between link and node failure, embodiments of the present invention strengthen the assumption that
10 Fast Reroute need only respond to a single failure at a time. Thus guaranteed bandwidth may readily be provided continuously under failure conditions, even where it is necessary to accurately distinguish between link and node failures.
NETWORK DEVICE DETAILS
Fig. 1 depicts a network device 100 that may be used to implement any of the described nodes or a network management workstation. In one embodiment, network device 100 is a programmable machine that may be iinplemented in hardware, software or any combination thereof. A processor 102 executes code stored in a program memory 104. Program memory 104 is one example of a computer-readable storage medium. Program memory 104 can be a volatile memory. Another form of computer-readable storage medium storing the same codes would be some type of non-volatile storage such as floppy disks, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, hard disks, flash memory, etc. A carrier wave that carries the code across a network is another example of a computer-readable storage medium.
Network device 100 interfaces with physical media via a plurality of network interfaces 106. For example, one of network interfaces 106 may couple to an optical fiber and may incorporate appropriate physical and link layer functionality. Other examples of network interfaces include Ethernet interfaces, DSL interfaces, Gigabit Etliernet interfaces, 10-Gigabit Ethernet interfaces, etc. As packets are received, processed, and forwarded by network device 100, they may be stored in a packet memory 108. Network
NETWORK DEVICE DETAILS
Fig. 1 depicts a network device 100 that may be used to implement any of the described nodes or a network management workstation. In one embodiment, network device 100 is a programmable machine that may be iinplemented in hardware, software or any combination thereof. A processor 102 executes code stored in a program memory 104. Program memory 104 is one example of a computer-readable storage medium. Program memory 104 can be a volatile memory. Another form of computer-readable storage medium storing the same codes would be some type of non-volatile storage such as floppy disks, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, hard disks, flash memory, etc. A carrier wave that carries the code across a network is another example of a computer-readable storage medium.
Network device 100 interfaces with physical media via a plurality of network interfaces 106. For example, one of network interfaces 106 may couple to an optical fiber and may incorporate appropriate physical and link layer functionality. Other examples of network interfaces include Ethernet interfaces, DSL interfaces, Gigabit Etliernet interfaces, 10-Gigabit Ethernet interfaces, etc. As packets are received, processed, and forwarded by network device 100, they may be stored in a packet memory 108. Network
11 device 100 implements all of the network protocols and extensions thereof described above as well as the data networking features provided by the present invention.
.5 It is understood that the examples and embodiments that are described herein are for illustrative purposes only and that various modifications and changes in light thereof will be suggested to persons skilled in the art and are to be included within the spirit and purview of this application and scope of the appended claims and their full scope of equivalents.
.5 It is understood that the examples and embodiments that are described herein are for illustrative purposes only and that various modifications and changes in light thereof will be suggested to persons skilled in the art and are to be included within the spirit and purview of this application and scope of the appended claims and their full scope of equivalents.
Claims (36)
1. A method of operating a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to said selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to said selected node through said link, said method comprising:
pre-configuring an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
pre-configuring an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determining that said neighboring node has failed.
upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determining that said neighboring node has failed.
3. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has not failed.
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has not failed.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein said alternate path comprises a backup tunnel.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein said backup tunnel comprises an MPLS Traffic Engineering backup tunnel.
6. The method of claim 4 wherein said backup tunnel also protects said link.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node comprises:
conducting an RSVP Hello exchange.
conducting an RSVP Hello exchange.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has failed; and rerouting traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has failed; and rerouting traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
9. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said link has failed; and rerouting traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said link has failed; and rerouting traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
10. A computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable code for operating a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to said selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to said selected node through said link, said computer-readable code operable to:
pre-configure an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, use said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
pre-configure an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, use said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
11. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 further comprising:
computer-readable code operable to, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determine that said neighboring node has failed.
computer-readable code operable to, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determine that said neighboring node has failed.
12. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 further comprising:
computer-readable code operable to, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determine that said another node has not failed.
computer-readable code operable to, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determine that said another node has not failed.
13. The computer-readable medium of claim 12 wherein said alternate path comprises a backup tunnel.
14. The computer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein said backup tunnel comprises an MPLS Traffic Engineering backup tunnel.
15. The computer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein said backup tunnel also protects said link.
16. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 wherein said computer-readable code operable to use said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node comprises:
computer-readable code operable to conduct an RSVP Hello exchange.
computer-readable code operable to conduct an RSVP Hello exchange.
17. The computer-readable medium of claim 10 further comprising computer-readable code operable to:
upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determine that said another node has failed; and reroute traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determine that said another node has failed; and reroute traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
18. The computer-readable medium of claim 17 further comprising computer readable code operable to:
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determine that said link has failed; and reroute traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determine that said link has failed; and reroute traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
19. Apparatus operating a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to said selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to said selected node through said link, said apparatus comprising:
means for pre-configuring an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link;
and means for upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
means for pre-configuring an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link;
and means for upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
20. The apparatus of claim 19 further comprising:
means for, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determining that said neighboring node has failed.
means for, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determining that said neighboring node has failed.
21. The apparatus of claim 20 further comprising:
means for, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has not failed.
means for, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has not failed.
22. The apparatus of claim 19 wherein said alternate path comprises a backup tunnel.
23. The apparatus of claim 22 wherein said backup tunnel comprises an MPLS Traffic Engineering backup tunnel.
24. The apparatus of claim 22 wherein said backup tunnel also protects said link.
25. The apparatus of claim 19 wherein said means for using said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node comprises:
means for conducting an RSVP Hello exchange.
means for conducting an RSVP Hello exchange.
26. The apparatus of claim 19 further comprising:
means for, upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has failed; and means for rerouting traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
means for, upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determining that said another node has failed; and means for rerouting traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
27. The apparatus of claim 19 further comprising:
means for, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said link has failed; and means for rerouting traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
means for, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determining that said link has failed; and means for rerouting traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
28. A network device that operates a selected node to distinguish between failure of a link connected to said selected node and failure of a neighboring node connected to said selected node through said link, said network device comprising:
a processor;
a memory, said memory storing instructions for execution on said processor, said instructions comprising:
code that pre-configures an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and code that, upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, uses said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
a processor;
a memory, said memory storing instructions for execution on said processor, said instructions comprising:
code that pre-configures an alternate path from said selected node to said neighboring node, said alternate path not including said link; and code that, upon detection of a failure of communication via said link, uses said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node.
29. The network device of claim 28 wherein said instructions further comprise:
code that, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determines that said neighboring node has failed.
code that, upon failure of communication via said alternate path, determines that said neighboring node has failed.
30. The network device of claim 28 wherein said instructions further comprise:
code that, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determines that said another node has not failed.
code that, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determines that said another node has not failed.
31. The network device of claim 29 wherein said alternate path comprises a backup tunnel.
32 The network device of claim 31 wherein said backup tunnel comprises an MPLS Traffic Engineering backup tunnel.
33. The network device of claim 31 wherein said backup tunnel also protects said link.
34. The network device of claim 28 wherein said code that uses said alternate path to verify operation of said neighboring node comprises:
code that conducts an RSVP Hello exchange.
code that conducts an RSVP Hello exchange.
35. The network device of claim 28 wherein said instructions further comprise:
code that, upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determines that said another node has failed; and code that reroutes traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
code that, upon failure to contact said another node via said alternate path, determines that said another node has failed; and code that reroutes traffic around said another node and into at least one backup tunnel configured to protect said another node.
36. The network device of claim 35 wherein said instructions further comprise:
code that, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determines that said link has failed; and code that reroutes traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
code that, upon successfully contacting said another node via said alternate path, determines that said link has failed; and code that reroutes traffic around said link and into at least one backup tunnel protecting said link.
Applications Claiming Priority (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/171,395 | 2002-06-12 | ||
US10/171,395 US7986618B2 (en) | 2002-06-12 | 2002-06-12 | Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute |
PCT/US2003/017883 WO2003107606A1 (en) | 2002-06-12 | 2003-06-06 | Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
CA2487344A1 CA2487344A1 (en) | 2003-12-24 |
CA2487344C true CA2487344C (en) | 2010-04-27 |
Family
ID=29732769
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
CA2487344A Expired - Fee Related CA2487344C (en) | 2002-06-12 | 2003-06-06 | Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute |
Country Status (8)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US7986618B2 (en) |
EP (1) | EP1512250B1 (en) |
CN (1) | CN1659835B (en) |
AT (1) | ATE373365T1 (en) |
AU (1) | AU2003237444B2 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2487344C (en) |
DE (1) | DE60316287T2 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2003107606A1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (84)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7627780B2 (en) | 2003-04-23 | 2009-12-01 | Dot Hill Systems Corporation | Apparatus and method for deterministically performing active-active failover of redundant servers in a network storage appliance |
US7320083B2 (en) | 2003-04-23 | 2008-01-15 | Dot Hill Systems Corporation | Apparatus and method for storage controller to deterministically kill one of redundant servers integrated within the storage controller chassis |
US7401254B2 (en) * | 2003-04-23 | 2008-07-15 | Dot Hill Systems Corporation | Apparatus and method for a server deterministically killing a redundant server integrated within the same network storage appliance chassis |
US7565566B2 (en) | 2003-04-23 | 2009-07-21 | Dot Hill Systems Corporation | Network storage appliance with an integrated switch |
US7512064B2 (en) | 2004-06-15 | 2009-03-31 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Avoiding micro-loop upon failure of fast reroute protected links |
CN1780253A (en) * | 2004-11-17 | 2006-05-31 | 华为技术有限公司 | Method for repeating route rapidly |
US7551551B2 (en) * | 2004-12-10 | 2009-06-23 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Fast reroute (FRR) protection at the edge of a RFC 2547 network |
US7512063B2 (en) * | 2004-12-14 | 2009-03-31 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Border router protection with backup tunnel stitching in a computer network |
US7515529B2 (en) * | 2004-12-14 | 2009-04-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Efficient mechanism for fast recovery in case of border router node failure in a computer network |
US7633859B2 (en) * | 2005-01-26 | 2009-12-15 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Loop prevention technique for MPLS using two labels |
US9306831B2 (en) * | 2005-02-14 | 2016-04-05 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for efficient load balancing of TE-LSPs |
US7933197B2 (en) * | 2005-02-22 | 2011-04-26 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for constructing a repair path around a non-available component in a data communications network |
US7664013B2 (en) * | 2005-02-28 | 2010-02-16 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Loop prevention technique for MPLS using service labels |
US7535828B2 (en) | 2005-03-18 | 2009-05-19 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Algorithm for backup PE selection |
US7477593B2 (en) * | 2005-04-04 | 2009-01-13 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Loop prevention techniques using encapsulation manipulation of IP/MPLS field |
US8228786B2 (en) | 2005-04-07 | 2012-07-24 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Dynamic shared risk node group (SRNG) membership discovery |
US7586841B2 (en) | 2005-05-31 | 2009-09-08 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for protecting against failure of a TE-LSP tail-end node |
CN100484022C (en) | 2005-07-04 | 2009-04-29 | 华为技术有限公司 | System and method for improving communication reliability |
US7848224B2 (en) * | 2005-07-05 | 2010-12-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for constructing a repair path for multicast data |
CN100446467C (en) * | 2005-07-15 | 2008-12-24 | 华为技术有限公司 | Restoring method for link fault |
US7693043B2 (en) * | 2005-07-22 | 2010-04-06 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for advertising repair capability |
US20070041315A1 (en) * | 2005-08-18 | 2007-02-22 | Bellsouth Intellectual Property Corporation | Backuo logical port service |
JP4491397B2 (en) * | 2005-10-07 | 2010-06-30 | アラクサラネットワークス株式会社 | A packet transfer device having a traffic bypass function. |
US20070091794A1 (en) * | 2005-10-20 | 2007-04-26 | Clarence Filsfils | Method of constructing a backup path in an autonomous system |
US7852772B2 (en) * | 2005-10-20 | 2010-12-14 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method of implementing a backup path in an autonomous system |
US7864669B2 (en) * | 2005-10-20 | 2011-01-04 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method of constructing a backup path in an autonomous system |
US7855953B2 (en) | 2005-10-20 | 2010-12-21 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for managing forwarding of data in an autonomous system |
US7693047B2 (en) * | 2005-11-28 | 2010-04-06 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for PE-node protection |
US7463580B2 (en) * | 2005-12-15 | 2008-12-09 | Corrigent Systems, Ltd. | Resource sharing among network tunnels |
US7835271B2 (en) * | 2005-12-29 | 2010-11-16 | Alcatel-Lucent Usa Inc. | Signaling protocol for p-cycle restoration |
US8441919B2 (en) * | 2006-01-18 | 2013-05-14 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Dynamic protection against failure of a head-end node of one or more TE-LSPs |
US7765306B2 (en) | 2006-01-30 | 2010-07-27 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for enabling bidirectional forwarding detection between edge devices in a computer network |
US8082340B2 (en) * | 2006-01-30 | 2011-12-20 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for distinguishing between link and node failure using bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) |
US8072879B2 (en) | 2006-02-03 | 2011-12-06 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for determining whether to reestablish fast rerouted primary tunnels based on backup tunnel path quality feedback |
US8644137B2 (en) * | 2006-02-13 | 2014-02-04 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and system for providing safe dynamic link redundancy in a data network |
WO2007093083A1 (en) * | 2006-02-17 | 2007-08-23 | Zte Corporation | Method for updating the state of protected tunnel after fast reroute switch |
US7885179B1 (en) * | 2006-03-29 | 2011-02-08 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for constructing a repair path around a non-available component in a data communications network |
US7702816B2 (en) * | 2006-03-31 | 2010-04-20 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Facilitating application synchronization with a reservation protocol at a sender without application receiver participation |
US9043487B2 (en) * | 2006-04-18 | 2015-05-26 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Dynamically configuring and verifying routing information of broadcast networks using link state protocols in a computer network |
US8004960B2 (en) * | 2006-04-28 | 2011-08-23 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Method and apparatus for forwarding label distribution protocol multicast traffic during fast reroute |
US8208372B2 (en) * | 2006-06-02 | 2012-06-26 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for fast activation of a secondary head-end node TE-LSP upon failure of a primary head-end node TE-LSP |
US8374092B2 (en) * | 2006-08-28 | 2013-02-12 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Technique for protecting against failure of a network element using multi-topology repair routing (MTRR) |
US7957306B2 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2011-06-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Providing reachability information in a routing domain of an external destination address in a data communications network |
US7697416B2 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2010-04-13 | Cisco Technolgy, Inc. | Constructing a repair path in the event of non-availability of a routing domain |
US8111616B2 (en) * | 2006-09-08 | 2012-02-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Constructing a repair path in the event of failure of an inter-routing domain system link |
US7701845B2 (en) * | 2006-09-25 | 2010-04-20 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Forwarding data in a data communications network |
CN100450038C (en) * | 2006-09-29 | 2009-01-07 | 杭州华三通信技术有限公司 | Link load sharing method and relay device |
CN101523803B (en) * | 2006-10-09 | 2015-11-25 | 艾利森电话股份有限公司 | Elastic scheme in communication network |
US7551569B2 (en) * | 2006-10-31 | 2009-06-23 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Efficient tunnel placement in a computer network using distributed synchronization |
US8279749B2 (en) * | 2006-11-27 | 2012-10-02 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Failure protection for P2MP tunnel head-end node |
US8355315B2 (en) * | 2006-11-27 | 2013-01-15 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Failure protection for P2MP tunnel tail-end node |
US7995500B2 (en) * | 2006-11-30 | 2011-08-09 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Managing an amount of tunnels in a computer network |
EP2098021A1 (en) * | 2006-12-29 | 2009-09-09 | Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (publ) | Method of providing data |
US7920466B2 (en) | 2007-01-11 | 2011-04-05 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Protection of hierarchical tunnel head-end nodes |
US7940776B2 (en) | 2007-06-13 | 2011-05-10 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Fast re-routing in distance vector routing protocol networks |
US8437272B2 (en) * | 2007-08-16 | 2013-05-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Distinguishing between connectivity verification availability and forwarding protocol functionality in a computer network |
US8817595B2 (en) * | 2008-02-13 | 2014-08-26 | Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ) | Overlay network node and overlay networks |
US8531976B2 (en) * | 2008-03-07 | 2013-09-10 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Locating tunnel failure based on next-next hop connectivity in a computer network |
IL192397A0 (en) * | 2008-06-23 | 2012-06-28 | Eci Telecom Ltd | Technique for fast reroute protection of logical paths in communication networks |
CN101877665B (en) | 2009-04-29 | 2013-12-18 | 华为技术有限公司 | Ring network protecting method, network node and ring network |
US8078911B2 (en) * | 2009-10-16 | 2011-12-13 | Microsoft Corporation | Error recovery for application-level intermediaries |
CN101729290A (en) * | 2009-11-04 | 2010-06-09 | 中兴通讯股份有限公司 | Method and device for realizing business system protection |
JP5392050B2 (en) * | 2009-12-11 | 2014-01-22 | 富士通株式会社 | Relay device, relay method, and communication system |
CN102118301B (en) * | 2009-12-31 | 2014-03-19 | 中兴通讯股份有限公司 | Tunnel protection method and device |
US8542578B1 (en) | 2010-08-04 | 2013-09-24 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | System and method for providing a link-state path to a node in a network environment |
US8743679B2 (en) | 2011-02-28 | 2014-06-03 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Client diversity policy sharing with the transport layer |
US10089277B2 (en) | 2011-06-24 | 2018-10-02 | Robert Keith Mykland | Configurable circuit array |
CN102394820B (en) * | 2011-11-02 | 2014-09-24 | 江苏电力信息技术有限公司 | Telephone traffic routing fast recovery method based on multiplex complementary configurations |
US9633160B2 (en) * | 2012-06-11 | 2017-04-25 | Robert Keith Mykland | Method of placement and routing in a reconfiguration of a dynamically reconfigurable processor |
US9304770B2 (en) | 2011-11-21 | 2016-04-05 | Robert Keith Mykland | Method and system adapted for converting software constructs into resources for implementation by a dynamically reconfigurable processor |
US8855014B2 (en) | 2012-06-15 | 2014-10-07 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Distributed stateful path computation element overlay architecture |
US9300564B2 (en) | 2012-06-15 | 2016-03-29 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Ordered flooding requests for path computation elements |
US9185022B2 (en) | 2012-06-15 | 2015-11-10 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Dynamically triggered traffic engineering routing advertisements in stateful path computation element environments |
US9501363B1 (en) * | 2013-03-15 | 2016-11-22 | Nuodb, Inc. | Distributed database management system with node failure detection |
US9876675B1 (en) | 2013-06-28 | 2018-01-23 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Packet transport shared mesh protection |
DE102015201144A1 (en) | 2014-01-30 | 2015-07-30 | Eci Telecom Ltd. | A method for implementing Fast Rerouting (FRR) |
KR102093296B1 (en) | 2014-02-11 | 2020-03-25 | 한국전자통신연구원 | Data processing system changing massive path time-deterministically and operating method of the system |
US10135670B2 (en) | 2014-12-22 | 2018-11-20 | Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development Lp | Response to an inoperative network device managed by a controller |
GB2569792B (en) * | 2017-12-21 | 2020-04-08 | Canon Kk | Method and device for resetting at least one processing device |
EP3808031A1 (en) * | 2018-06-13 | 2021-04-21 | Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) | Robust node failure detection mechanism for sdn controller cluster |
CN109302359A (en) * | 2018-11-27 | 2019-02-01 | 迈普通信技术股份有限公司 | A kind of network equipment, link converting method and device |
CN113315699B (en) * | 2021-05-17 | 2022-05-17 | Ut斯达康通讯有限公司 | Multi-master multi-standby fast rerouting system and method for distinguishing priority |
US11671353B2 (en) | 2021-07-30 | 2023-06-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Distributed health monitoring and rerouting in a computer network |
CN116996368B (en) * | 2023-09-26 | 2024-01-19 | 苏州元脑智能科技有限公司 | Method, system, equipment and storage medium for cloud internal and external communication |
Family Cites Families (18)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
BE905982A (en) * | 1986-12-19 | 1987-06-19 | Electronique Et Telecomm Bell | PACKET SWITCHING NETWORK. |
US5016243A (en) * | 1989-11-06 | 1991-05-14 | At&T Bell Laboratories | Automatic fault recovery in a packet network |
US5177248A (en) * | 1991-10-28 | 1993-01-05 | Exxon Research And Engineering Company | Process of forming polysubstituted fullerenes |
US20030133417A1 (en) * | 1997-03-12 | 2003-07-17 | Sig H. Badt | Method and message therefor of monitoring the spare capacity of a dra network |
JP4108877B2 (en) * | 1998-07-10 | 2008-06-25 | 松下電器産業株式会社 | NETWORK SYSTEM, NETWORK TERMINAL, AND METHOD FOR SPECIFYING FAILURE LOCATION IN NETWORK SYSTEM |
US6587860B1 (en) * | 1999-03-31 | 2003-07-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Apparatus and method for tracking access to data resources in a cluster environment |
US7046929B1 (en) * | 1999-08-24 | 2006-05-16 | Ciena Corporation | Fault detection and isolation in an optical network |
US6473863B1 (en) | 1999-10-28 | 2002-10-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automatic virtual private network internet snoop avoider |
JP3578960B2 (en) * | 2000-02-28 | 2004-10-20 | 日本電信電話株式会社 | Ultra-high-speed optical packet transfer ring network, optical add / drop multiplex / demultiplex node device, and operation method of optical add / drop multiplex / demultiplex node device |
US6996065B2 (en) * | 2000-07-06 | 2006-02-07 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Dynamic backup routing of network tunnel paths for local restoration in a packet network |
KR100725005B1 (en) * | 2000-11-22 | 2007-06-04 | 주식회사 케이티 | Fast rerouting method in mpls network |
WO2002065607A1 (en) * | 2001-02-12 | 2002-08-22 | Maple Optical Systems, Inc. | Multiple level fault protection in a communications network |
WO2002099946A1 (en) * | 2001-06-05 | 2002-12-12 | Stern Thomas E | A system and method of fault restoration in communication networks |
US20030014516A1 (en) * | 2001-07-13 | 2003-01-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Recovery support for reliable messaging |
US6895441B1 (en) * | 2001-07-30 | 2005-05-17 | Atrica Ireland Ltd. | Path rerouting mechanism utilizing multiple link bandwidth allocations |
US20080002669A1 (en) * | 2001-09-14 | 2008-01-03 | O'brien Ray | Packet voice gateway |
US6748434B2 (en) * | 2001-09-18 | 2004-06-08 | Ericsson Inc. | Adaptive node selection |
CA2428517A1 (en) * | 2002-05-13 | 2003-11-13 | Tropic Networks Inc. | System and method for distributed resource reservation protocol - traffic engineering (rsvp-te) hitless restart in multi-protocol label switching (mpls) network |
-
2002
- 2002-06-12 US US10/171,395 patent/US7986618B2/en active Active
-
2003
- 2003-06-06 AT AT03736895T patent/ATE373365T1/en not_active IP Right Cessation
- 2003-06-06 CN CN03813483.7A patent/CN1659835B/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2003-06-06 DE DE60316287T patent/DE60316287T2/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
- 2003-06-06 EP EP03736895A patent/EP1512250B1/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
- 2003-06-06 CA CA2487344A patent/CA2487344C/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2003-06-06 AU AU2003237444A patent/AU2003237444B2/en not_active Ceased
- 2003-06-06 WO PCT/US2003/017883 patent/WO2003107606A1/en active IP Right Grant
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20030233595A1 (en) | 2003-12-18 |
DE60316287T2 (en) | 2008-06-05 |
US7986618B2 (en) | 2011-07-26 |
AU2003237444B2 (en) | 2008-01-10 |
ATE373365T1 (en) | 2007-09-15 |
EP1512250A1 (en) | 2005-03-09 |
DE60316287D1 (en) | 2007-10-25 |
EP1512250B1 (en) | 2007-09-12 |
CN1659835A (en) | 2005-08-24 |
WO2003107606A1 (en) | 2003-12-24 |
CN1659835B (en) | 2010-08-25 |
AU2003237444A1 (en) | 2003-12-31 |
CA2487344A1 (en) | 2003-12-24 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
CA2487344C (en) | Distinguishing between link and node failure to facilitate fast reroute | |
Sharma et al. | Framework for multi-protocol label switching (MPLS)-based recovery | |
EP1766828B1 (en) | Consistency between mpls traffic engineering forwarding and control planes | |
US7230913B1 (en) | MPLS fast reroute without full mesh traffic engineering | |
US7675860B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for determining a preferred backup tunnel to protect point-to-multipoint label switch paths | |
AU2002357377B2 (en) | Implicit shared bandwidth protection for fast reroute | |
EP2658182B1 (en) | Ring network protection method, network node and ring network | |
WO2008098451A1 (en) | Tunnel establishing method, network node device and network system | |
JP2012533246A (en) | Recovery mechanism for point-to-multipoint traffic | |
EP2254289B1 (en) | Method, device, and system for establishing label switching path in fast rerouting switching | |
Hariyawan | Comparison analysis of recovery mechanism at MPLS network | |
EP1942609B1 (en) | A system and method for protecting multicast service path | |
CN101374106A (en) | Method for forwarding data packet on MPLS LSP, network node and system | |
CN101753409A (en) | Method, device and system for sharing resources | |
Ahn et al. | An efficient rerouting scheme for MPLS-based recovery and its performance evaluation | |
US7418493B1 (en) | Method for computing FRR backup tunnels using aggregate bandwidth constraints | |
Rozycki et al. | Failure detection and notification in GMPLS control plane | |
Sharma et al. | RFC3469: Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery | |
CN108702321B (en) | System, method and apparatus for implementing fast reroute (FRR) | |
Agarwal et al. | Ingress failure recovery mechanisms in MPLS network | |
US7848249B1 (en) | Method for computing FRR backup tunnels using aggregate bandwidth constraints | |
Amin et al. | MPLS QoS-aware traffic engineering for Network Resilience | |
Jie et al. | A Pre-Segmented Sharing Recovery Scheme for MPLS/GMPLS | |
Papadimitriou | Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) recovery mechanisms at IETF | |
Huang et al. | IETF Draft Vishal Sharma Multi-Protocol Label Switching Ben-Mack Crane Expires: May 2001 Srinivas Makam Ken Owens Tellabs Operations, Inc. |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
EEER | Examination request | ||
MKLA | Lapsed |
Effective date: 20180606 |