The present invention relates generally to communication networks, and particularly to methods and systems for rerouting network traffic in cases of link failure.
Communication networks used in applications such as High-Performance Computing (HPC) systems and datacenters typically comprise a large number of network elements interconnected by links. A high-reliability communication network should be able to recover quickly from link failure events.
Methods for recovery from link failures are known in the art. For example, a white paper by Mellanox® Technologies (2018) describes a solution called SHIELD™ (Self-Healing Interconnect Enhancement for Intelligent Datacenters), which takes advantage of the intelligence already built into the latest generation of InfiniBand switches. By making the fabric capable of self-healing autonomy, the speed with which communications can be corrected in the face of a link failure can be sped up by 5000×, fast enough to save communications from expensive retransmissions or absolute failure.
Aspects of the SHIELD solution are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 9,729,473, which describes a method in a network element that includes multiple interfaces for connecting to a communication network. The method includes receiving via an ingress interface packets that are not allowed to undergo re-routing and that are addressed to a destination via a first egress interface. The packets are forwarded via the first egress interface when there is a valid path from the first egress interface to the destination. When there is no valid path from the first egress interface to the destination, a second egress interface is selected from a group of multiple egress interfaces that have respective paths to the destination and are assigned to packets for which re-routing is allowed, and the packets are forwarded via the second egress interface until recovering a path to the destination.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,137,143 describes a multiprocessor computer system comprising a dragonfly processor interconnect network that comprises a plurality of processor nodes and a plurality of routers. The routers are operable to adaptively route data by selecting from among a plurality of network paths from a target node to a destination node in the dragonfly network based on one or more of network congestion information from neighboring routers and failed network link information from neighboring routers.
Embodiments of the present invention that are described hereinbelow provide improved methods and systems for rerouting network traffic in cases of link failure.
There is therefore provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a method for communication, which includes configuring primary routes for delivery of data packets in a network including multiple subnetworks interconnected by trunk links. Each subnetwork includes multiple switches, which are configured to communicate via at least first and second virtual lanes and are arranged in a bipartite topology including an upper tier containing upper-tier switches, which are connected to one or more of the trunk links, and a lower tier containing lower-tier switches, which are connected by local links to the upper-tier switches. The local links in each subnetwork are partitioned into at least first and second groups.
For each local link that is a part of one or more of the primary routes and connects a first upper-tier switch to a first lower-tier switch in a given subnetwork, a corresponding detour route is defined, passing through a first local link belonging to the first group from the first upper-tier switch to a second lower-tier switch within the given subnetwork, and from the second lower-tier switch over a second local link to a second upper-tier switch in the given subnetwork, and from the second upper-tier switch over a third local link belonging to the second group to the first lower-tier switch. Upon a failure of the local link connecting the first upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch, the data packets arriving at the first upper-tier switch for transmission to the first lower-tier switch are rerouted so that the data packets pass through the corresponding detour route to the first lower-tier switch, while transmitting the data packets over the second and third local links via the second virtual lane.
In some embodiments, the lower-tier switches include leaf switches, and the method includes delivering the data packets received in the given subnetwork via the detour route to a network end-node that is connected to the first lower-tier switch.
Additionally or alternatively, partitioning the links in each subnetwork includes defining a third group of the links, wherein defining the corresponding detour route includes configuring detour routes through the first and second groups of the links for the data packets that are destined for network end-nodes that are connected to the given subnetwork, and wherein the method includes defining at least one dive-through route over which a data packet enters the subnetwork via the first virtual lane through a first trunk link to one of the upper-tier switches in the subnetwork, passes through one of the links in the third group to one of the lower-tier switches in the subnetwork and through another one of the links via the second virtual lane to another one of the upper-tier switches in the subnetwork, from which the data packet exits the subnetwork through a second trunk link.
In a disclosed embodiment, defining the corresponding detour route includes defining multiple detour routes for use in case of failures of multiple ones of the local links in the given subnetwork.
In some embodiments, defining the corresponding detour route includes, for any given local link, applying the corresponding detour route in rerouting the data packets arriving in the given subnetwork over any of a plurality of the primary routes of which the given local link is a part, such that the primary routes continue to pass through the first upper-tier switch notwithstanding failures of the given local link. In a disclosed embodiment, configuring the primary routes includes defining an adaptive routing group including the primary routes that are destined to the given subnetwork irrespective of the lower-tier switches to which the primary routes are directed, such that upon failures of any of the local links within the given subnetwork, the primary routes in the adaptive routing group are rerouted over detour routes within the given subnetwork.
There is also provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a communication system, which includes a network including multiple subnetworks interconnected by trunk links. Each subnetwork includes multiple switches, which are configured to communicate via at least first and second virtual lanes and are arranged in a bipartite topology including an upper tier containing upper-tier switches, which are connected to one or more of the trunk links, and a lower tier containing lower-tier switches, which are connected by local links to the upper-tier switches. A management processor is configured to define primary routes for delivery of data packets in the network, to partition the local links in each subnetwork into at least first and second groups, and for each local link that is a part of one or more of the primary routes and connects a first upper-tier switch to a first lower-tier switch in a given subnetwork, to define a corresponding detour route passing through a first local link belonging to the first group from the first upper-tier switch to a second lower-tier switch within the given subnetwork, and from the second lower-tier switch over a second local link to a second upper-tier switch in the given subnetwork, and from the second upper-tier switch over a third local link belonging to the second group to the first lower-tier switch. The switches in the given subnetwork are configured, upon a failure of the local link connecting the first upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch, to reroute the data packets arriving at the first upper-tier switch for transmission to the first lower-tier switch so that the data packets pass through the corresponding detour route to the first lower-tier switch, while transmitting the data packets over the second and third local links via the second virtual lane.
There is additionally provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a method for communication, which includes partitioning local links in a subnetwork of a packet data network into at least first and second groups. For each local link that connects a first upper-tier switch to a first lower-tier switch in the subnetwork, a corresponding detour route is defined, passing through a first local link belonging to the first group from the first upper-tier switch to a second lower-tier switch, and from the second lower-tier switch over a second local link to a second upper-tier switch, and from the second upper-tier switch over a third local link belonging to the second group to the first lower-tier switch. Upon a failure of the local link connecting the first upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch, data packets arriving from the network at the first upper-tier switch for forwarding over the local link are rerouted so that the data packets pass via the corresponding detour route to the first lower-tier switch.
In a disclosed embodiment, rerouting the data packets includes receiving the data packets from the network, and forwarding the data packets via a specified virtual lane from the second lower-tier switch over the second local link to the second upper-tier switch.
There is further provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention, method for communication, which includes configuring primary routes for delivery of data packets in a network including multiple subnetworks interconnected by trunk links. Each subnetwork includes multiple switches in a bipartite topology including an upper tier containing upper-tier switches, which are connected to one or more of the trunk links, and a lower tier containing lower-tier switches, which are connected by local links to the upper-tier switches. For any given local link that is a part of one or more of the primary routes and connects a first upper-tier switch to a first lower-tier switch in a given subnetwork, a corresponding detour route is defined, passing through the local links within the given subnetwork from the first upper-tier switch to a second lower-tier switch, and from the second lower-tier switch to a second upper-tier switch and from the second upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch. When the given local link is a part of a plurality of the primary routes, the corresponding detour route is applied to all of the plurality of the primary routes of which the given local link is a part, such that the primary routes continue to pass through the first upper-tier switch notwithstanding failures of the given local link. Upon a failure of the local link connecting the first upper-tier switch to the first lower-tier switch, the data packets arriving at the first spine switch in the given subnetwork are rerouted to pass via the corresponding detour route to the first lower-tier switch.
In a disclosed embodiment, configuring the primary routes includes defining an adaptive routing group including the primary routes that are destined to the given subnetwork irrespective of the lower-tier switches to which the primary routes are directed, such that upon failures of any of the local links within the given subnetwork, the primary routes in the adaptive routing group are rerouted over detour routes within the given subnetwork.
The present invention will be more fully understood from the following detailed description of the embodiments thereof, taken together with the drawings in which:
When a link in a packet data network fails, packets that would normally be forwarded via this link may be dropped until an alternative path to the destination is established. In principle, a central entity in the network may detect or be notified of a failed link and may then reconfigure one or more of the network elements to create an alternative path to the destination. Centralized recovery methods of this sort, however, react too slowly for the needs of high-performance, high-speed networks.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/016,464, filed Sep. 10, 2020, whose disclosure is incorporated herein by reference, describes methods and systems for recovering from link failures in a network using predefined local detour paths. This approach provides a fast recovery mechanism, and the detour path can remain in use until the link is fixed or until a central entity reconfigures an alternative path. The techniques described in this patent application are particularly applicable, for example, to topologies comprising interconnected groups of switches (or other network elements) having bipartite topologies, in which the switches are arranged in upper and lower tiers, which are connected by a mesh of local links. In such a topology, for example, the switches may include a lower tier of leaf switches, which connect to end-nodes of the network, and an upper tier of spine switches, which are connected by trunk links to the other groups.
In lossless networks, rerouting of packets in response to link failures can give rise to problems of deadlock due to flow control loops. Lossless networks typically apply flow control techniques to prevent buffer overfill and packet drop events. Rerouting in such networks, however, may result in buffers of multiple switches interconnected cyclically becoming full, preventing these switches from further sending or receiving packets. This sort of condition is referred to as a “deadlock condition” or simply “deadlock.” One way to avoid deadlock is to transmit packets over multiple virtual lanes (VLs) on each link, but this approach requires that the switches have large memories in order to allocate sufficient buffer space for all the virtual lanes. To optimize the use of memory resources, it is generally desirable that only a small number of virtual lanes be used throughout the network, for example two virtual lanes.
In response to this problem, the above-mentioned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/016,464 describes a deadlock-free solution that can be applied by the switches in a bipartite group in case of a local link failure: The packets are rerouted to their destination switch via a detour path, which includes a detour link that delivers packets in a spine-to-leaf direction and another detour link that delivers packets in a leaf-to-spine direction within the group. This solution is capable of handling any single link failure within any given group of switches without requiring that more than two virtual lanes be used throughout the network.
Embodiments of the present invention that are described herein extend this solution to cover the possibility of multiple local link failures within a bipartite group of switches. These embodiments are applicable particularly to networks comprising multiple subnetworks interconnected by trunk links, each subnetwork comprising multiple switches arranged in a bipartite topology. A management processor (for example, a computer processor performing the function of a subnet manager) configures primary routes, over which packets are delivered through the network from a given source to a given destination, and detour routes for use in case of failures of the primary routes.
To define the detour routes, the management processor partitions the local links in each subnetwork into at least two groups. For each local link that is a part of one or more of the primary routes and connects a given upper-tier switch to a given lower-tier switch in one of the subnetworks, the corresponding detour route passes from the given upper-tier switch to a second lower-tier switch within the subnetwork through a first local link belonging, for example, to the first of the two groups. The route then passes from this second lower-tier switch over a second local link (which may belong to either of the groups) to a second upper-tier switch in the subnetwork, and from the second upper-tier switch over a third local link belonging to the second group to the original, given lower-tier switch.
Upon a failure of a local link, between a certain upper-tier switch and a certain lower-tier switch, for which a detour route of this sort has been defined, the switches in the subnetwork reroute data packets arriving at the given upper-tier switch to pass through the corresponding detour route to the lower-tier switch. Assuming that the packets arrive at the upper tier switch via a first virtual lane (for example from a trunk link on VL0), over which packets are transmitted from their source nodes through the network, the switches will transmit the data packets over the second and third local links of the detour route via a different, second virtual lane (VL1 in this example). It can be shown that this scheme will operate without deadlocks, using only two virtual lanes, even when multiple local links in a given subnetwork fail simultaneously. Specifically, in a bipartite subnetwork having n switches in each of the upper and lower tiers, the number of local link failures that can be handled by the present detour routes is n/2−1.
In some embodiments of the present invention, advance definition of detour routes for the local links in each subnetwork is used in defining adaptive routing (AR) groups over the entire network. For this purpose, as explained above, the management processor defines a corresponding detour route for each local link (between a certain upper-tier switch and a certain lower-tier switch in a given subnetwork) that is a part of one or more primary routes in the network. When a given local link is a part of multiple primary routes, the corresponding detour route is applied to all of these primary routes. Thus, these primary routes continue to pass through the same upper-tier switch in the subnetwork notwithstanding failures of the given local link.
Using this scheme, the management processor can define an AR group comprising the primary routes that are destined to any given subnetwork irrespective of the lower-tier switches through which the primary routes pass. Upon failures of any of the local links within the given subnetwork, the primary routes in the adaptive routing group are rerouted over the corresponding detour routes within the given subnetwork. Thus, the switches outside any given subnetwork need not even be informed of local link failures in the subnetwork and continue to transmit packets along the primary routes irrespective of such failures, since local link failures are handled internally within the subnetworks. This approach is useful in conserving memory in the switches and reducing the need for inter-switch failure notifications.
Reference is now made to
As shown in
In the example of
The topology is defined as “bipartite” because it is analogous to a bipartite graph, meaning a graph in which the vertices are partitioned into two sets, and every edge in the graph has an endpoint in each of the two sets. In the present context, a bipartite topology comprises multiple upper-tier switches and multiple lower-tier switches. Each upper-tier switch is connected to one or more lower-tier switches, and each lower-tier switch is connected to one or more upper-tier switches, but upper-to-upper and lower-to-lower links are not allowed. A bipartite topology is referred to as “fully connected” when each upper-tier switch connects to all lower-tier switches, and vice versa. In general, however, a bipartite topology is not necessarily fully connected.
In the present embodiment and in the description that follows, subnetwork 26 comprise switches 28 and 29. As shown in the inset in
Each port 32 serves both as an ingress port for receiving packets from another switch or from a network end-node, and as an egress port for transmitting packets to another switch or to a network end-node. Ports 32 typically comprise hardware circuit components capable of performing physical layer (PHY) and media access control (MAC) interface functions, as are known in the art.
Packet processor 34 applies various processing operations to packets received via ports 32, such as verification, filtering, prioritization, and forwarding. These processing operations may also include modifying the Virtual Lane (VL) with which the packets are associated. As noted earlier, switches 28, 29 support at least two virtual lanes (VL0 and VL1) and may support a larger number of virtual lanes. Typically, packet processor 34 comprise hard-wired and/or programmable hardware logic circuits, which are configured to carry out the functions described herein at high speed. Additionally or alternatively, at least some of the functions of packet processor 34 may be implemented in software on a suitable programmable processing core.
Packet processor 34 performs packet forwarding using a forwarding table 38, based, for example, on source and destination addresses carried in the packet headers. Using the forwarding table, the switch determines the egress port for each received packet. Switch 28 stores received packets that have been processed and await transmission in queues in memory 36. In alternative embodiments, other packet processing and forwarding methods, such as Access Control Lists (ACLs), can also be used.
Switch 28 comprises a switch controller 40, typically comprising a programmable processor, which is programmed in software to carry out the functions that are described herein. Among other tasks, switch controller 40 updates forwarding table 38 to include detour paths that can be used to resolve network malfunctions due to link failures. Typically these detour paths are defined by a management processor, such as a programmable processor 56 in a subnet manager (SM) 54 (
SM 54 typically comprises processor 56 and a memory and may be configured as a standalone device, with communication links to switches 28 and 29, or may be integrated into one of the switches or other components of system 20. Although SM 54 is shown in
As noted above, switch controller 40 stores one or more predefined detour paths, which are defined by a management processor, such as processor 56 in SM 54, using the methods that are described herein. Upon a link failure, switch controller 40 directs traffic to an alternative port leading to the respective detour path. In other embodiments, switch controller 40 communicates with other switches in network 26 for selecting a detour path, and applies the selected detour path by updating forwarding table 38. Additionally or alternatively, upon detecting a failure of one of local links 30, switch controller 40 notifies subnet manager 54, so that the subnet manager can take appropriate action in rerouting in the network to circumvent the failed link. The use of the detour route in the meanwhile ensures that there will be little or no interruption of packet traffic in the network while the processes of failure notification and rerouting are going on. Once the new routes have been established, the detour route may no longer be required.
In
By convention, switch L2 in SN1 transmits the packets from their source node on VL0. This choice is arbitrary, and any virtual lane can be used for transmission of packets from their source. To ensure deadlock-free operation while conserving virtual lanes (and thus conserving memory resources), however, it is desirable that the same virtual lane, such as VL0, be used for transmission of all data packets from their respective source nodes in the source subnetwork. Switchover to a second virtual lane, such as VL1, within subnetworks 26 takes place when appropriate, specifically when the packet is forwarded by an upper-tier switch 29 from one trunk link 52 to another or is forwarded within a subnetwork from a lower-tier switch to an upper-tier switch, as described further hereinbelow.
Alternatively or additionally, SM 54 may define a four-hop route, for example via one of upper-tier switches in SN5, or a six-hop “dive-through” route, passing through upper-tier switches 29 and one of lower-tier switches 28 in SN5. (Such routes may similarly be defined through other subnetworks, such as SN2 and SN3. Each “hop” corresponds to a single link on the path of the packet to its destination.) In the dive-through route, for example, data packets transmitted from SRC node 24s through switch L2 are conveyed through a first trunk link 52 to one of upper-tier switches 29 in SN5, for example from S1 in SN1 to S0 in SN5. The packets thus enter SN5 and pass through local links 30 from S0 to one of lower-tier switches 28, such as switch L1 in SN5, and then through another one of the local links 30 to another one of the upper-tier switches, for example to switch S3 is SN5. The data packets are transmitted from SN1 and enter SN5 on VL0, but for purposes of deadlock avoidance, switch L1 in SN5 transmits the packets onward using VL1. The data packets exit SN5 on VL1 through a second trunk link 52, for example from switch S3 is SN5 to switch S1 in SN4. This switch then transmits the packets over local link 30 to switch L2, which passes the packets to DST end-node 24d. Details of the criteria applied by SM 54 is defining dive-through routes of this sort are described further hereinbelow with reference to
To ensure that the detour routes will be deadlock-free, SM 54 partitions local links 30 into two groups. In
Referring now to
In the scenario shown in
Typically, SM 54 defines multiple detour routes for use in case of failures of different local links in subnetwork 26. Two or more of these detour routes can be used concurrently when multiple link failures occur simultaneously in the subnetwork.
As another example,
Any given local link in a given subnetwork 26, such as links 66 and 74 in
Rerouting of the packets within subnetwork 26 in this manner is transparent to the other subnetworks in system 20. Switches 28, 29 in this subnetwork will notify SM 54 of the failure, and SM 54 will typically respond by updating forwarding tables 38 (
This application of preconfigured detour routes is also useful in simplifying the adaptive routing information that is provided to the switches in system 20 and thus in reducing the volume of memory that the switches must use to store this adaptive routing information. For this purpose, SM 54 defines adaptive routing groups in system 20. Each such group comprises the primary routes that are destined to a given subnetwork, irrespective of the lower-tier switches (i.e., the leaf switches in the present example) within the subnetwork to which the primary routes are directed. Upon failures of any of the local links within the given subnetwork, the primary routes in the adaptive routing group will be rerouted over detour routes within the given subnetwork.
Fault routing information is saved for each adaptive routing group to prevent sending data packets toward failed links. Since local failures are handled locally inside each subnetwork, the fault routing information is correct for the entire subnetwork, thus enabling the adaptive routing group information to be stored per subnetwork, rather than per destination leaf switch. When adaptive routing groups of this sort are defined with respect to the primary routes that terminate in a given subnetwork, switches in other subnetworks need not be aware at all of the lower-tier switches within the given subnetwork that take part in detour routing. There is thus no need for adaptive routing information to be stored by switches in other subnetworks with respect to the leaf switches through which the primary routes reach their destinations in the given subnetwork. This adaptive routing solution is a useful adjunct to the particular detour routing schemes that are described above; but it may alternatively be applied in conjunction with other methods for defining detour paths within subnetworks, such as the methods defined in the above-mentioned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/016,464.
The dive-through route shown in
Although the embodiments shown in
Documents incorporated by reference in the present patent application, and specifically the above-mentioned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/016,464, are to be considered an integral part of the application except that to the extent any terms are defined in these incorporated documents in a manner that conflicts with the definitions made explicitly or implicitly in the present specification, only the definitions in the present specification should be considered.
It will be appreciated that the embodiments described above are cited by way of example, and that the present invention is not limited to what has been particularly shown and described hereinabove. Rather, the scope of the present invention includes both combinations and subcombinations of the various features described hereinabove, as well as variations and modifications thereof which would occur to persons skilled in the art upon reading the foregoing description and which are not disclosed in the prior art.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4312064 | Bench et al. | Jan 1982 | A |
6115385 | Vig | Sep 2000 | A |
6169741 | LeMaire et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6480500 | Erimli et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6532211 | Rathonyi et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553028 | Tang | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6614758 | Wong | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6665297 | Harigochi et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6775268 | Wang et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6795886 | Nguyen | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6804532 | Moon et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807175 | Jennings et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6831918 | Kavak | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6912589 | Jain et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6912604 | Tzeng et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6950428 | Horst et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
7010607 | Bunton | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7076569 | Bailey et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7221676 | Green et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7234001 | Simpson et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7274869 | Pan et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7286535 | Ishikawa et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7401157 | Costantino et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7590110 | Beshai et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7676597 | Kagan et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7746854 | Ambe et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7899930 | Turner et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7924837 | Shabtay et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7936770 | Frattura et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7969980 | Florit et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
8094569 | Gunukula et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8175094 | Bauchot et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8195989 | Lu et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8213315 | Crupnicoff et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8401012 | Underwood et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8489718 | Brar et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8495194 | Brar et al. | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8570865 | Goldenberg et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8576715 | Bloch et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8605575 | Gunukula et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8621111 | Marr et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8625427 | Terry et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8681641 | Sajassi et al. | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8737269 | Zhou et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8755389 | Poutievski et al. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
8774063 | Beecroft | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8867356 | Bloch et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8873567 | Mandal et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
8908510 | Sela et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8908704 | Koren et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
9014006 | Haramaty et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9042234 | Liljenstolpe et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
9137143 | Parker et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9231888 | Bogdanski et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9264382 | Bogdanski et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9385949 | Vershkov et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9544185 | Yadav et al. | Jan 2017 | B1 |
9548960 | Haramaty et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9571400 | Mandal et al. | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9584429 | Haramaty et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9699095 | Elias et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9729473 | Haramaty et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9876727 | Gaist et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9985910 | Gafni et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
10009277 | Goldenberg et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10079782 | Haramaty et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10200294 | Shpiner et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10205683 | Elias et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10218642 | Mula et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10230652 | Haramaty et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10389646 | Zdornov et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
10554556 | Haramaty et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10574546 | Levi et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10644995 | Levy et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
11310163 | Lo et al. | Apr 2022 | B1 |
20010043564 | Bloch et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010043614 | Viswanadhham et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020009073 | Furukawa et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020013844 | Garrett et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020026525 | Armitage | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020039357 | Lipasti | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020067693 | Kodialam | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020071439 | Reeves et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020085586 | Tzeng | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020136163 | Kawakami et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138645 | Shinomiya et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020141412 | Wong | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165897 | Kagan et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020176363 | Durinovic-Johri et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030016624 | Bare | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030039260 | Fujisawa | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065856 | Kagan et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030079005 | Myers et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097438 | Bearden et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030223453 | Stoler et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040024903 | Costatino et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040062242 | Wadia et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040111651 | Mukherjee et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040202473 | Nakamura et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050013245 | Sreemanthula et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050154790 | Nagata et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050157641 | Roy | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050259588 | Preguica | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060126627 | Diouf | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060143300 | See et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060182034 | Klinker et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060215645 | Kangyu | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060291480 | Cho et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070030817 | Arunachalam et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070058536 | Vaananen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070058646 | Hermoni | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070070998 | Sethuram et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070091911 | Watanabe et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070104192 | Yoon et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070183418 | Riddoch et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070223470 | Stahl | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070237083 | Oh et al. | Oct 2007 | A9 |
20080002690 | Ver Steeg et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080101378 | Krueger | May 2008 | A1 |
20080112413 | Pong | May 2008 | A1 |
20080165797 | Aceves | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080186981 | Seto et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080189432 | Abali et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080267078 | Farinacci et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080298248 | Roeck et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090010159 | Brownell et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090022154 | Kiribe et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090097496 | Nakamura et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090103534 | Malledant et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090119565 | Park et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090262741 | Jungck et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100020796 | Park et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100039959 | Gilmartin | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100049942 | Kim et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100111529 | Zeng et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100141428 | Mildenberger et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100189113 | Csaszar et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100216444 | Mariniello et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100284404 | Gopinath et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100290385 | Ankaiah et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100290458 | Assarpour et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100315958 | Luo et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110019673 | Fernandez | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110080913 | Liu et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110085440 | Owens et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110085449 | Jeyachandran et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110090784 | Gan | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110164496 | Loh et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110164518 | Daraiseh et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110225391 | Burroughs et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110249679 | Lin et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110255410 | Yamen et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110265006 | Morimura et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110299529 | Olsson et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120020207 | Corti et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120075999 | Ko et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120082057 | Welin et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120144065 | Parker et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120147752 | Ashwood-Smith et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120163797 | Wang | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120170582 | Abts et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120207175 | Raman et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120250500 | Liu | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120250679 | Judge et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120287791 | Xi et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120300669 | Zahavi | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120314706 | Liss | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130044636 | Koponen et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130071116 | Ong | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130083701 | Tomic et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130114599 | Arad | May 2013 | A1 |
20130114619 | Wakumoto | May 2013 | A1 |
20130159548 | Vasseur et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130170451 | Krause et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130182604 | Moreno et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130204933 | Cardona et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130208720 | Ellis et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130242745 | Umezuki | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130259033 | Hefty | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130297757 | Han et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130315237 | Kagan et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130322256 | Bader et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130329727 | Rajagopalan et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130336116 | Vasseur et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130336164 | Yang et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140016457 | Enyedi et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140022942 | Han et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140043959 | Owens et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140059440 | Sasaki et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140105034 | Sun | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140140341 | Bataineh et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140169173 | Naouri et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140192646 | Mir et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140198636 | Thayalan et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140211808 | Koren et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140269305 | Nguyen | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140313880 | Lu et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140328180 | Kim et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140343967 | Baker | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150030033 | Vasseur et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150052252 | Gilde et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150092539 | Sivabalan et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150124815 | Beliveau et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150127797 | Attar et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150131663 | Brar et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150163144 | Koponen et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150172070 | Csaszar | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150194215 | Douglas et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150195204 | Haramaty et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150249590 | Gusat et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150295858 | Chrysos et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150372916 | Haramaty et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160012004 | Arimilli et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160014636 | Bahr et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160028613 | Haramaty | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160043933 | Gopalarathnam | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160080120 | Unger et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160080321 | Pan et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160182378 | Basavaraja et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160294715 | Raindel et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160380893 | Chopra et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170054445 | Wang | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170054591 | Hyoudou et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170068669 | Levy et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170070474 | Haramaty et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170180243 | Haramaty | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170187614 | Haramaty et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170195758 | Schrans et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170244630 | Levy et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170270119 | Kfir et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170286292 | Levy et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170331740 | Levy et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170358111 | Madsen | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180026878 | Zahavi | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180062990 | Kumar et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180089127 | Flajslik et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180139132 | Edsall et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180302288 | Schmatz | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20200042667 | Swaminathan et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200067822 | Malhotra et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200136956 | Neshat | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20220014607 | Pilnik et al. | Jan 2022 | A1 |
20220045972 | Aibester et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
20220182309 | Bataineh et al. | Jun 2022 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1394053 | Jan 2003 | CN |
105141512 | Dec 2015 | CN |
110719193 | Jan 2020 | CN |
11549927 | Dec 2022 | CN |
2012037494 | Mar 2012 | WO |
2015175567 | Nov 2015 | WO |
2016014362 | Jan 2016 | WO |
2016105446 | Jun 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Nkposong et al., “Experiences with BGP in Large Scale Data Centers: Teaching an Old Protocol New Tricks”, pp. 1-47, JANOG33 Meeting (Japan Network Operators' Group), Beppu City, Japan, Jan. 23-24, 2014. |
Infiniband Trade Association, “Supplement to Infiniband Architecture Specification,” vol. 1, release 1.2.1—Annex A17: RoCEv2, pp. 1-23, Sep. 2, 2014. |
Infiniband Trade Association, “InfiniBand Architecture Specification,” vol. 1, Release 1.5, Jun. 2, 2021, Draft, Table 6 (Base Transport Header Fields), pp. 1-2, year 2021. |
Thulasiraman et al., “Logical Topology Augmentation for Guaranteed Survivability Under Multiple Failures in IP-over-WDM Optical Network,” 2009 IEEE 3rd International Symposium on Advanced Networks and Telecommunication Systems (ANTS), pp. 1-3, year 2009. |
Nastiti et al., “Link Failure Emulation with Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford Algorithm in Software Defined Network Architecture,” Abstract of Case Study: Telkom University—Topology, 2018 6th IEEE Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), pp. 135-140, year 2018. |
Kamiyama et al., “Network Topology Design Considering Detour Traffic Caused by Link Failure,” Networks 2008—The 13th International Telecommunications Network Strategy and Planning Symposium, pp. 1-8, year 2008. |
Valadarsky et al., “Xpander: Towards Optimal-Performance Datacenters,” Proceedings of CoNEXT '16, pp. 205-219, Dec. 2016. |
Bilu et al., “Lifts, Discrepancy and Nearly Optimal Spectral Gap,” Combinatorica, vol. 26, No. 5, Bolyai Society—Springer-Verlag, pp. 495-519, year 2006. |
Leiserson, C E., “Fat-Trees: Universal Networks for Hardware Efficient Supercomputing”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-34, No. 10, pp. 892-901, Oct. 1985. |
Ohring et al., “On Generalized Fat Trees”, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Parallel Processing, pp. 37-44, Santa Barbara, USA, Apr. 25-28, 1995. |
Zahavi, E., “D-Mod-K Routing Providing Non-Blocking Traffic for Shift Permutations on Real Life Fat Trees”, CCIT Technical Report #776, Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, Aug. 2010. |
Yuan et al., “Oblivious Routing for Fat-Tree Based System Area Networks with Uncertain Traffic Demands”, Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS—the International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems, pp. 337-348, San Diego, USA, Jun. 12-16, 2007. |
Matsuoka S., “You Don't Really Need Big Fat Switches Anymore—Almost”, IPSJ SIG Technical Reports, vol. 2003, No. 83, pp. 157-162, year 2003. |
Kim et al., “Technology-Driven, Highly-Scalable Dragonfly Topology”, 35th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pp. 77-78, Beijing, China, Jun. 21-25, 2008. |
Jiang et al., “Indirect Adaptive Routing on Large Scale Interconnection Networks”, 36th International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pp. 220-231, Austin, USA, Jun. 20-24, 2009. |
Minkenberg et al., “Adaptive Routing in Data Center Bridges”, Proceedings of 17th IEEE Symposium on High Performance Interconnects, New York, USA, pp. 33-41, Aug. 25 - 27, 2009. |
Kim et al., “Adaptive Routing in High-Radix Clos Network”, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (SC2006), Tampa, USA, Nov. 2006. |
Infiniband Trade Association, “InfiniBandTM Architecture Specification vol. 1”, Release 1.2.1, Nov. 2007. |
Culley et al., “Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification”, IETF Network Working Group, RFC 5044, Oct. 2007. |
Shah et al., “Direct Data Placement over Reliable Transports”, IETF Network Working Group, RFC 5041, Oct. 2007. |
Martinez et al., “Supporting fully adaptive routing in Infiniband networks”, Proceedings of the International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS'03),Apr. 22-26, 2003. |
Joseph, S., “Adaptive routing in distributed decentralized systems: NeuroGrid, Gnutella & Freenet”, Proceedings of Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS and Scalable MAS, Montreal, Canada, 11 pages, year 2001. |
Gusat et al., “R3C2: Reactive Route & Rate Control for CEE”, Proceedings of 18th IEEE Symposium on High Performance Interconnects, New York, USA, pp. 50-57, Aug. 10-27, 2010. |
Wu et al., “DARD: Distributed adaptive routing datacenter networks”, Proceedings of IEEE 32nd International Conference Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 32-41, Jun. 18-21, 2012. |
Ding et al., “Level-wise scheduling algorithm for fat tree interconnection networks”, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (SC 2006), 9 pages, Nov. 2006. |
Prisacari et al., “Performance implications of remote-only load balancing under adversarial traffic in Dragonflies”, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Interconnection Network Architecture: On-Chip, Multi-Chip, 4 pages, Jan. 22, 2014. |
Li et al., “Multicast Replication Using Dual Lookups in Large Packet-Based Switches”, 2006 IET International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks, , pp. 1-3, Nov. 6-9, 2006. |
Nichols et al., “Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers”, Network Working Group, RFC 2474, 20 pages, Dec. 1998. |
Microsoft., “How IPv4 Multicasting Works”, 22 pages, Mar. 28, 2003. |
Suchara et al., “Network Architecture for Joint Failure Recovery and Traffic Engineering”, Proceedings of the ACM SIGMETRICS joint international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems, pp. 97-108, Jun. 7-11, 2011. |
IEEE 802.1Q, “IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks”, IEEE Computer Society, 303 pages, May 19, 2006. |
Plummer, D., “An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol,” Network Working Group ,Request for Comments (RFC) 826, 10 pages, Nov. 1982. |
Hinden et al., “IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture,” Network Working Group ,Request for Comments (RFC) 2373, 26 pages, Jul. 1998. |
Garcia et al., “On-the-Fly 10 Adaptive Routing in High-Radix Hierarchical Networks,” Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP), pp. 279-288, Sep. 10-13, 2012. |
Dally et al., “Deadlock-Free Message Routing in Multiprocessor Interconnection Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-36, No. 5, May 1987, pp. 547-553. |
“Equal-cost multi-path routing”, Wikipedia, 2 pages, Oct. 13, 2014. |
Thaler et al., “Multipath Issues in Unicast and Multicast Next-Hop Selection”, Network Working Group, RFC 2991, 9 pages, Nov. 2000. |
Glass et al., “The turn model for adaptive routing”, Journal of the ACM, vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 874-903, Sep. 1994. |
Mahalingam et al., “VXLAN: A Framework for Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks”, Internet Draft, 20 pages, Aug. 22, 2012. |
Sinha et al., “Harnessing TCP's Burstiness with Flowlet Switching”, 3rd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets), 6 pages, Nov. 11, 2004. |
Vishnu et al., “Hot-Spot Avoidance With Multi-Pathing Over InfiniBand: An MPI Perspective”, Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid'07), 8 pages, year 2007. |
NOWLAB—Network Based Computing Lab, 2 pages, years 2002-2015 http://nowlab.cse.ohio-state.edu/publications/conf-presentations/2007/vishnu-ccgrid07.pdf. |
Alizadeh et al.,“CONGA: Distributed Congestion-Aware Load Balancing for Datacenters”, Cisco Systems, 12 pages, Aug. 9, 2014. |
Geoffray et al., “Adaptive Routing Strategies for Modern High Performance Networks”, 16th IEEE Symposium on High Performance Interconnects (HOTI '08), pp. 165-172, Aug. 26-28, 2008. |
Anderson et al., “On the Stability of Adaptive Routing in the Presence of Congestion Control”, IEEE INFOCOM, 11 paGes, 2003. |
Perry et al., “Fastpass: A Centralized “Zero-Queue” Datacenter Network”, M.I.T. Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Lab, 12 pages, year 2014. |
Afek et al., “Sampling and Large Flow Detection in SDN”, SIGCOMM '15, pp. 345-346, Aug. 17-21, 2015, London, UK. |
Amante et al., “IPv6 Flow Label Specification”, Request for Comments: 6437 , 15 pages, Nov. 2011. |
Shpigelman et al, U.S. Appl. No. 16/240,749, filed Jan. 6, 2019. |
Shpiner et al., “Dragonfly+: Low Cost Topology for Scaling Datacenters”, IEEE 3rd International Workshop on High-Performance Interconnection Networks in the Exascale and Big-Data Era (HiPINEB), pp. 1-9, Feb. 2017. |
Zahavi et al., “Distributed Adaptive Routing for Big-Data Applications Running on Data Center Networks,” Proceedings of the Eighth ACM/IEEE Symposium on Architectures for Networking and Communication Systems, New York, USA, pp. 99-110, Oct. 29-30, 2012. |
MELLANOX White Paper, “The SHIELD: Self-Healing Interconnect,” pp. 1-2, year 2019. |
Cao et al., “Implementation Method for High-radix Fat-tree Deterministic Source-routing Interconnection Network”, Computer Science , vol. 39, Issue 12, pp. 33-37, 2012. |
Yallouz et al., U.S. Appl. No. 17/016,464, filed Sep. 10, 2020. |
Levi et al., U.S. Appl. No. 17/079,543, filed Oct. 26, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/079,543 Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2022. |
EP Application # 21204582.7 Search Report dated Mar. 18, 2022. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/016,464 Office Action dated May 10, 2022. |
Cisco, “Cisco ACI Remote Leaf Architecture—White Paper,” pp. 1-83, Jan. 22, 2020. |
U.S. Appl. No. 17/539,252 Office Action dated Apr. 26, 2023. |
Zhao et al., “Recovery Strategy from Network Multi-link Failures Based on Overlay Network Constructing Technique,” Bulletin of Science and Technology, vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 170-239, Oct. 2016. |
CN Application # 202210593405.5 Office Action dated Sep. 15, 2023. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220407796 A1 | Dec 2022 | US |