This disclosure relates generally to computer networks, and more specifically, to periodic communications, such as communications for liveliness detection, between devices in a computer network.
A computer network is a collection of interconnected computing devices that can exchange data and share resources. In a packet-based network, such as the Internet, the computing devices communicate data by dividing the data into small blocks called packets, which are individually routed across the network from a source device to a destination device. The destination device extracts the data from the packets and assembles the data into its original form. Dividing the data into packets enables the source device to resend only those individual packets that may be lost during transmission.
Certain devices, referred to as routers, maintain routing information that describes available routes through the network. Each route defines a path between two locations on the network. Upon receiving an incoming packet, the router examines information within the packet and forwards the packet in accordance with the routing information. In order to maintain an accurate representation of a network, routers maintain control-plane peering sessions through which they exchange routing or link state information that reflects the current topology of the network.
Routers typically send periodic packets to each other via the peering sessions to confirm connectivity and to indicate operational status of each device. These periodic packets are sometimes referred to as “keepalives” or “hellos.” The routers may use the periodic packets for network liveliness detection, i.e., to detect connectivity status with each other. For example, a router may send periodic packets to a peer router every 50 milliseconds (ms) to indicate that the router is still operational. Likewise, the router may detect reception of corresponding periodic packets from the peer router within the same period of time (e.g., 50 ms). When a packet is not received in the allotted time frame, the router determines that a network event has occurred, such as failure of the peer router or failure of a link or node connecting the two routers. Consequently, the router may update various routing information to redirect network traffic and may issue a number of routing protocol update messages to neighboring routers indicating a topology change.
As one example, routers may exchange periodic packets by establishing a session provided by the bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) protocol. In accordance with BFD, a first router periodically sends BFD packets at a negotiated transmission time interval and detects a connectivity failure when the router does not receive a BFD packet from a second router within session detection time interval. The transmission time interval for BFD may be negotiated by the routers. The BFD session detection time interval is not negotiated. Instead, each receiving router independently calculates BFD session detection interval based on the negotiated transmit interval and a detection multiplier statically configured for that router. For instance, a router may negotiate to receive BFD packets every 50 ms from a peer router and may independently utilize a detection multiplier of three (3) times that interval, i.e., 150 ms in this example, for detecting failure. If the receiving router does not receive a BFD packet from the peer router within the 150 ms session detection time interval, the receiving router detects a connectivity failure with respect to the second router. Consequently, the receiving router may update its routing information to route traffic around the second router. Further details of the BFD protocol may be found in the proposed standard for BFD, by D. Katz and D. Ward (Juniper Networks, June 2010, ISSN: 2070-1721), the entire content of which is incorporated herein by reference.
In general, techniques of this disclosure are directed to dynamically adjusting a detection interval for periodic communications used by devices for detecting connectivity failure (e.g., for “liveliness detection”). For example, the techniques may be used to dynamically adjust a session detection time interval for during a bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) session, based on one or more network characteristics detected by a router. In accordance with one or more aspects of this disclosure, a router is configured to dynamically adjust the BFD detection timer (also referred to herein as an “adjacency timer”) in response to current network congestion conditions detected by the router. In various implementations, the router may detect network congestion using one or more of attribute(s) specified within BFD packets received from the peer router and/or timing measurement(s) associated with the received BFD packets. For instance, the router may detect whether or not network congestion exists over the link by discerning one or more values specified within a received BFD packet.
In other examples, the router may be configured to detect network congestion by measuring and extrapolating various timing statistics associated with the BFD packets received from the second router. Examples of such timing measurements include delay between receipt of BFD packets, and the rate of change of the delay (or “jitter”). Based on detecting congestion (or a level of congestion), the router may set the BFD detection (adjacency) timer to different time intervals.
In one example, a method includes receiving, by a network device, one or more packets provided by a bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) protocol, and detecting, by the network device and based on the received one or more packets, a congestion condition associated with a link via which the network device is coupled to a network. The method further includes adjusting, by the network device and based on the detected congestion condition, a session detection time defined by a timer executing on the network device, and in response to a failure to receive a BFD packet within the session detection time defined by the timer, detecting, by the network device, a failure of the link.
In another example, a network device includes a memory, programmable processor(s), and a control unit configured to execute a timer, receive one or more packets provided by a BFD protocol, detect, based on the received one or more packets, a congestion condition associated with a link via which the network device is coupled to a network, adjust, based on the detected congestion condition, a session detection time defined by the timer, and in response to a failure to receive a BFD packet within the session detection time defined by the timer, detect a failure of the link.
In another example, a computer-readable storage medium is encoded with instructions. The instructions cause one or more programmable processors of a network device to receive one or more packets provided by a BFD protocol, detect, based on the received one or more packets, a congestion condition associated with a link via which the network device is coupled to a network, adjust, based on the detected congestion condition, a session detection time defined by a timer executing on the network device, and in response to a failure to receive a BFD packet within the session detection time defined by the timer, detect a failure of the link.
Maintaining a static BFD detection timer (with a constant multiplier value to derive the session detection time) throughout a BFD session introduces several potential issues. As examples, the inflexibility of a static BFD detection timer may cause a router to either trigger false alarms in terms of link failure, or to detect a link failure after a time delay. More specifically, false alarms occur in cases where the router detects a link failure due to a congestion-based delay of an arriving BFD packet. The false alarm scenario is an example of the BFD detection timer being set too low (or too aggressively) for current network conditions. Conversely, in cases of low-to-no network congestion over the link, strict adherence to the static BFD detection timer may cause a router to detect a link failure some time after the failure actually occurred, potentially causing packet loss over the link during the detection delay. The detection delay scenario is an example of the BFD detection timer being set too high for current network conditions.
The techniques of this disclosure provide several potential advantages. A router implementing the techniques dynamically adjusts the BFD detection timer during a BFD session based on current network conditions. In cases of network congestion over the link, the router increases the BFD detection timer, thereby allowing for congestion-based delays in receiving BFD packets before identifying a link failure and terminating the BFD session. By avoiding terminating the BFD session due to false alarms, the router may conserve computing time and resources that it would otherwise expend in updating its routing information base (RIB) and corresponding forwarding information base (FIB). Also, by avoiding terminating the BFD session due to false alarms, the router may reduce or eliminate possible traffic drops.
Conversely, in cases of low or no network congestion over the link, the router is configured to reduce the time interval specified by the BFD detection timer, thereby creating a more aggressive expectation of incoming BFD packets. In such scenarios, the router may more quickly detect legitimate link failures, and update its RIB and FIB accordingly. By detecting the link failure and implementing these remediation measures at an early stage, the router may mitigate or even eliminate packet loss caused by the link failure. Additionally, routers can implement the improved BFD-based techniques of this disclosure without any changes to existing hardware or software infrastructure, and without generating any new types of network traffic for the sole purpose of detecting link failures. Instead, such routers may utilize the mechanisms and packet structure currently provided by the BFD protocol to implement the enhancements described herein.
The details of one or more examples are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of this disclosure will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.
Additionally, customer networks 16 include respective customer edge routers 17A and 17B (“CE routers 17”). As shown, each of CE routers 17 is linked to a respective edge router of routers 12. Edge routers 12A and 12C communicate with CE routers 17 to provide customer networks 16 with access to service provider network 20. As shown, each of customer networks 16 may be a network for a site of an enterprise. Each of customer networks 16 may include one or more computing devices (not shown), such as personal computers, laptop computers, handheld computers, workstations, servers, switches, printers, or other devices. Service provider network 20 may be coupled to one or more networks administered by other service providers, and may thus form part of a large-scale public network infrastructure, e.g., the Internet. Consequently, customer networks 16 may be viewed as edge networks of the Internet.
The service provider may provide computing devices within customer networks 16 with access to the Internet via service provider network 20, which allows computing devices within one of customer networks 16 to communicate with computing devices within the Internet or the other one of customer networks 16.
Routers 12 communicate in accordance with one or more control-plane protocols to maintain accurate representation of the topology of service provider network 20. For example, routers 12 maintain peering sessions with each other and exchange routing information for routes or links within service provider network 20 in accordance with a routing protocol. Example protocols include the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) distance vector routing protocol and the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System (IS-IS) link state routing protocols.
In addition to exchanging session messages to convey network topology information, routers 12 periodically send status inquiries (e.g., send “periodic packets” or “periodic data”) to one another in order to monitor the state of the other devices. That is, by sending periodic inquiries and detecting receipt of similar periodic inquiries, routers 12 detect any failures in communicating data between each other, either as a result of failure of one or more of routers 12 or of links 14 between them. Upon detecting such a failure, the detecting router 12 updates one or more internal representations of the topology of service provider network 20, and outputs session messages to the other routers 12 to inform the other routers 12 of the topology changes.
Typically, the length of time between which routers 12 transmit the periodic data or messages to one another correlates directly to the speed at which routers 12 detect any failure in communications between one another and thus update the respective representation of the topology of service provider network 20 to respond to the failure. For this reason, routers 12 are frequently configured to seek receipt of consecutive periodic inquiries within a relatively short length of time, e.g., within a few seconds or even in the order of milliseconds (ms).
One exemplary protocol, referred to as the bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) protocol, is commonly used between two routing devices in order for each router to closely monitor the state (e.g., health) of the other routing device. For example, two of routers 12 that exchange routing information via the OSPF or ISIS routing protocols establish a BFD session for sending and responding to status inquiries in the form of Hello packets or Echo packets, either asynchronously or when needed (e.g., as in the BFD Demand Mode). In either case, the BFD protocol provides a very short interval of time between which routers 12 must transmit periodic messages, and thus may facilitate the quicker detection of failures by routers 12 that are in an active BFD session.
Although described herein with reference to the BFD protocol, the techniques may apply to any protocol allowing for periodic messages for inquiring as to the status of a peering device. Further, the techniques may be applicable to routers 12 that use these periodic communications for media access control (MAC) layer protocols, such as the frame relay LMI, point-to-point (PPP) protocol. Moreover, the techniques further include instances where routers 12 employ the BFD protocol in conjunction with any of the above protocols, as well as, protocols not contemplated herein. In these instances, routers 12 may employ the BFD protocol for detecting failures and the other protocol for other routing functions, such as route resolution.
In the example of
The detection (or adjacency) timer measures intervals between received BFD packets over a BFD session. Using the adjacency timer, routers 12 determine the status of a connection corresponding to a BFD session. For instance, routers 12 often use the adjacency timer to determine a session detection time. If a particular router 12 does not receive a BFD packet within the session detection time, the particular router 12 detects a network event, such as a failure of the link associated with the BFD session. In many instances, routers 12 set the timer to a multiple (e.g., an integer multiple) of the negotiated interval for received BFD packets, such as a value of (3*Interval) ms. In examples, the negotiated interval for receiving BFD packets corresponds to the negotiated transmit interval of the peer router in the BFD session.
In the examples described above, the different intervals negotiated with respect to BFD sessions 18A and 18B reflect the nature of the connections between the respective sets of routers in each of between BFD sessions 18A and 18B. For instance, BFD session 18A corresponds to a direct connection (over link 14A) between routers 12A and 12B. In other words, BFD packets sent over BFD session 18A are not routed through an intermediate router. In contrast, BFD session 18B represents a so-called “multi-hop” BFD session. More specifically, BFD session 18B is established between routers 12A and 12D, which are not directly coupled by a physical link. Instead, routers 12A and 12D communicate through intermediate router 12E.
As a result, the respective pairs of routers 12 that establish BFD sessions 18A and 18B negotiate transmit and/or receipt intervals that are suited to each router's capabilities, and to the nature of the link between them. In turn, router 12A may set a session detection time based on the receipt interval to determine a failure associated with router 12B using BFD session 18A.
Each of routers 12 may also negotiate a device-specific transmit interval. In other words, the transmit interval can vary for each router 12 of BFD session 18B. For instance, during BFD session 18B, router 12D may transmit a BFD packet every 10 ms, while router 12A may transmit a BFD packet every 15 ms. In turn, router 12A may implement a BFD adjacency timer with a receipt interval of 10 ms, and router 12D may implement a BFD adjacency timer with a receipt interval of 15 ms. This notion of device-specific intervals explains the “bidirectional” or “B” of the “BFD” protocol, as the periodic messages can be controlled differently in each direction.
Data traffic over service provider network 20 may vary at different times. As one example, devices of customer networks 16 may transmit and elicit high volumes of data over service provider network 20 during business hours of a weekday. Conversely, customer networks 16 may cause substantially lighter traffic over service provider network 20 during non-business hours. This variation in traffic frequently affects BFD sessions 18A and 18B. More specifically, heavier traffic potentially delays the transport of BFD packets over links 14, while lighter traffic enables unencumbered transport of the BFD packets. The condition of transport delays due to heavy data traffic is referred to herein as “congestion.”
Varying congestion conditions introduce several issues and potential inaccuracies into the BFD session participation of routers 12. As described, greater congestion can cause a network device in a BFD session, such as router 12A, to receive a BFD packet after a congestion-based delay. However, due to strict adherence to the session detection time defined by the respective adjacency timer, router 12A may erroneously detect a failure of an active BFD session, such as BFD session 18A. Based on the erroneously-detected failure, router 12A is configured to update its current representation of the topology of service provider network 20, as well as the packet forwarding schemes, to account for link 14A and/or router 12B being down. Additionally, router 12A is configured to disseminate the updated topology to the remaining routers 12, causing the remaining routers 12 to also update their respective routing and forwarding data. When caused by false alarms due to network congestion conditions, such erroneous failure detection and resulting remediation measures may cause substantial churn and resource waste over service provider network 20, thereby compromising data transport to and from customer networks 16.
Conversely, during periods of light or no congestion, router 12A can afford to implement a more aggressive session detection time to detect BFD failures. For instance, using a greater session detection time over BFD session 18B may cause router 12A to detect a failure of router 12D and/or one or both of links 14D and 14E some time after a legitimate failure. During the delay period, router 12A may continue to route traffic through links 14D and 14E, or otherwise through router 12D, causing packet loss. The examples above illustrate potential disadvantages of maintaining a static session detection time regardless of congestion conditions over service provider network 20.
To mitigate or eliminate these potential disadvantages, a router in a BFD session, such as router 12A, implements the techniques of this disclosure to dynamically adjust the session detection time defined by respective adjacency timer based on current congestion conditions over service provider network 20. More specifically, in accordance with the techniques, router 12A is configured to increase the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer during certain greater congestion conditions, and to reduce the session detection time during lesser congestion conditions. In addition, router 12A is configured to detect the congestion conditions using BFD packets received over BFD sessions 18A and 18B, thereby eliminating the need for additional congestion-detection infrastructure.
In some implementations, router 12A is configured to detect a congestion condition using one or more attributes specified within received BFD packets. For instance, router 12A may use data specified in an explicit congestion notification (ECN) field of control data (e.g., the IP header) of the received BFD packet to determine the congestion condition over the network. More specifically, any transit router of the BFD session experiencing congestion may set an explicit congestion notification (ECN) field in the IP header of the BFD packet to indicate the detected congestion condition. In turn, router 12A may check the ECN field in the IP header of a received BFD packet, and toggle the value of the failure threshold between a high multiple of the BFD interval (e.g., 5*10 ms=50 ms) and a low multiple (e.g., 2*10 ms=20 ms) based on whether the ECN field indicates congestion or not. This implementation is an example of a binary adjustment of the BFD detection timer, i.e., a switch between two possible values based on a presence or absence of congestion. In other implementations, router 12A may toggle the value of the failure threshold between a high and low multiple of the BFD interval based on an ECN field of any received IP packet header, wherein the source and destination addresses of the received IP packet match the IP addresses of the BFD session endpoints.
In other implementations, router 12A is configured to discern a congestion value associated with a BFD session. For instance, router 12B may use one or both of control-plane (header) or data-plane (payload) information of a received BFD packet to indicate a congestion level over BFD session 18A. More specifically, router 12B communicates the congestion level as a value (e.g., high-medium-low, or as a numeric value) using data specified within a BFD packet transmitted over BFD session 18A. In turn, router 12A is configured to adjust the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer based on the congestion level indicated in the BFD packets received over BFD session 18A. In this example, router 12A may choose from three or more available session detection times, or may generate three or more possible session detection times based on the received congestion information. Such implementations are examples of a granular adjustment of the session detection time, i.e., a more congestion-sensitive approach to adjusting the session detection time specified by the adjacency timer.
The implementations described above are examples in which router 12A is configured to detect congestion based on content of (e.g., attributes specified within) BFD packets received over a BFD session. In these and other examples, router 12A may implement the techniques of this disclosure to detect congestion based on timing measurements associated with BFD packets received over a particular BFD session. As one example, router 12A uses the delay between receipt of consecutive BFD packets received over BFD session 18B to detect congestion over BFD session 18B. In this example, router 12A is configured to determine a detection multiplier (e.g., a numeric value) based on the detected congestion, and apply the detection multiplier to the receipt interval to set a new congestion-adjusted session detection time.
More specifically, router 12A detects the delay, which is referred to herein as a first-order statistic, between receipt of consecutive BFD packets over BFD session 18B. In a scenario that is free of congestion-based delays, router 12A will receive consecutive BFD packets at time intervals matching the negotiated receipt interval. However, in a congestion-delayed scenario, router 12A receives consecutive BFD packets at time intervals exceeding the negotiated receipt interval. In cases of congestion-based delays, router 12A is configured to calculate an average of receipt delays associated with a series of consecutive pairs of BFD packets. An example of an average function that router 12A calculates is a normalized weighted moving average of the delays along the series. Based on the calculated average, router 12A determines a new detection multiplier value by which to set the adjusted session detection time. More specifically, router 12A applies the new detection multiplier to the negotiated receipt interval to derive the adjusted session detection time during the life of BFD session 18B. In this manner, router 12A is configured to dynamically adjust the session detection time during a BFD session based on detected congestion conditions. In examples, router 12A sets an upper bound for the detection multiplier, so as to avoid setting the session detection time to an excessively high value, even in cases of severe congestion over BFD session 18B. In these examples, router 12A may determine the weighted moving average of delays to automatically account for any lost packets due to congestion, thereby implementing the algorithm in a robust manner.
Router 12A may also determine the new detection multiplier value based on a second-order timing statistic, known as jitter. Jitter represents the rate of change of delay over a series of received BFD packets. For instance, router 12A is configured to determine how the delay changes between pairs of consecutive packets along the series. Similar to the delay-based operation described above, router 12A is configured to apply the new detection multiplier during the life of BFD session 18B, thereby dynamically adjusting the session detection time based on congestion conditions.
In this example, router 30 includes a control unit 31 that comprises a routing engine 32 and a forwarding engine 34. In addition, router 30 includes a set of interface cards (IFCs) 50A-50N (collectively, “IFCs 50”) for communicating packets via inbound links 52A-52N (collectively, “inbound links 52”) and outbound links 54A-54N (collectively, “outbound links 54”).
Routing engine 32 primarily provides an operating environment for control plane protocols, such as those included in protocols 40. For example, one or more routing protocols (“RP”) 47 maintain routing information 36 to reflect the current topology of a network and other network entities to which it is connected. In particular, RP 47 updates routing information 36 to accurately reflect the topology of the network and other entities. Example routing protocols include Multi-Protocol Border Gateway Protocol (mpBGP), the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (ISIS) routing protocol, the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol and the like.
Routing engine 32 generates and programs forwarding engine 34 with forwarding information 38 that associates network destinations with specific next hops and corresponding interface ports of IFCs 50 in accordance with routing information 36. Routing engine 32 may generate forwarding information 38 in the form of a radix tree having leaf nodes that represent destinations within the network.
Based on forwarding information 38, forwarding engine 34 forwards packets received from inbound links 52A-52N to outbound links 54A-54N that correspond to next hops associated with destinations of the packets. U.S. Pat. No. 7,184,437 provides details on an exemplary embodiment of a router that utilizes a radix tree for route resolution, the contents of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In one example, forwarding engine 34 is a rich and dynamic shared forwarding plane, optionally distributed over a multi-chassis router. Moreover, forwarding plane 34 may be provided by dedicated forwarding integrated circuits normally associated with high-end routing components of a network router. Further details of one example embodiment of router 30 can be found in U.S. Provisional Patent Application 61/054,692, filed May 20, 2008, entitled “STREAMLINED PACKET FORWARDING USING DYNAMIC FILTERS FOR ROUTING AND SECURITY IN A SHARED FORWARDING PLANE,” which is incorporated herein by reference.
As shown in
Moreover, as shown in
More specifically, BFD module 39′ implements BFD protocol-based functionalities, such as transmitting and monitoring for periodic BFD packets, in the data-plane, thereby conserving resources that would otherwise be expended by routing engine 32. In case of a detected connectivity failure, BFD module 39′ is configured to transmit a failure notification, or other similar indication, to BFD module 39 of routing engine 32. In response to receiving the failure notification from BFD module 39′ of forwarding engine 34, BFD module 39 causes RP 47 to update the network topology currently stored to routing information 36, to reflect the failed link(s) represented by the BFD failure.
As shown in
In various implementations, timer adjustment module 42 is configured to detect and remediate congestion in a binary fashion, such as by determining whether or not the value of an explicit congestion notification (ECN) field of an incoming BFD packet indicates the presence of congestion. As one example, if the ECN field indicates the presence of network congestion, timer adjustment module 42 sets a session detection time defined by an adjacency timer of BFD module 39′ to a high multiple (e.g., five times) a currently negotiated receipt interval at which BFD module 39′ would receive periodic BFD packets in a particular BFD session. In this example, if the ECN field, indicates absence of network congestion, timer adjustment module 42 sets the session detection time to a low multiple (e.g., two times) the receipt interval for a particular BFD session. As described with respect to
In other examples, timer adjustment module 42 is configured to detect and remediate congestion in a granular fashion, such as by discerning a congestion level, or a classification thereof, over the link that supports the particular BFD session. In one example, timer adjustment module 42 detects three separate levels of congestion (such as high, mid, and low) from one or more attributes specified within a received BFD packet. In response to the detected congestion level, timer adjustment module 42 adjusts the session detection time in a granular fashion, such as by setting the adjacency timer to one of a high, mid, and low multiple of the receipt interval.
In other examples of granular congestion detection and remediation, timer module 42 is configured to discern a congestion value, or an approximation thereof, from the received BFD packets. Accordingly, timer adjustment module 42 is configured to calculate a corresponding detection multiplier from the congestion value. In these examples, timer adjustment module 42 applies the calculated detection multiplier to the current detection session detection time to generate an updated session detection time.
Instead of, or in addition to, detecting congestion from attributes specified within the received BFD packets, timer adjustment module 42 may detect congestion conditions using one or more timing measurements associated with the BFD packets received as part of a BFD session. An example of such a timing measurement is delay. Delay represents the elapsed time between receipt of two consecutive BFD packets. In a best case scenario of no congestion over the link, the delay for each pair of consecutive BFD packets matches the negotiated receipt interval exactly. In contrast, in cases of network congestion, the delay is greater than the receipt interval. If the congestion-based delay exceeds the session detection time, then BFD module 39′ identifies a link failure due to a false alarm. More specifically, the delayed BFD packet will arrive eventually at router 30, indicating that the link remains functional, and that the previously detected failure was a false alarm.
Timer module 42 is configured, in examples, to log statistics indicative of the delay, and use the delay information to generate a detection multiplier for adjusting the session detection time set by an adjacency timer of BFD module 39′. As one example, timer module 42 is configured to calculate a normalized weighted moving average of the delay across a series of received BFD packets. More specifically, timer module 42 may attach varying weights to the respective delays between different pairs of consecutive BFD packets. Additionally, timer adjustment module 42 calculates an average (such as a mean, median, or mode) of the weighted delays between consecutive BFD packets of the received series of BFD packets.
As described, in an ideal scenario, the normalized weighted moving average would equal the receipt interval negotiated by BFD module 39′. However, under several circumstances, varying levels of congestion may affect data traffic over the network. Under such circumstances, the normalized weighted moving average provides timer adjustment module 42 with a relatively accurate and up-to-date depiction of delays that may occur in receiving BFD packets during a BFD session. Based on the normalized weighted moving average of the delays, timer adjustment module 42 generates a new detection multiplier to apply to the receipt interval, to generate an updated session detection time. Examples of calculations that timer adjustment module 42 may use to generate the new detection multiplier based on delay are described in greater detail below.
Another example of a timing measurement that timer adjustment module 42 may use to adjust the session detection time defined by an adjacency timer of BFD module 39′ is commonly known as “jitter.” Jitter represents a rate of change of delay (e.g., a first derivative of the delay values) over a series of received BFD packets. In examples, timer adjustment module 42 utilizes the jitter to discern tendencies related to congestion over the network. In cases of increasing congestion, timer adjustment module 42 may generate a greater value for the detection multiplier value used to calculate the session detection time. Conversely, in cases of decreasing congestion, timer adjustment module may generate a lower value for the detection multiplier, sometimes even generating a fractional multiplier that, when applied, would reduce the current session detection time.
When using jitter to discern congestion tendencies, timer adjustment module 42 may calculate various values from the jitter values to generate the new detection multiplier value. Examples include an average (such as a normalized weighted moving average) jitter, a standard deviation from the average jitter, and a jitter variance (e.g., the square of the standard deviation value). Calculations that timer adjustment module 42 may perform using jitter and related values are described in greater detail below.
In the various examples described, timer adjustment module 42 may set upper and lower bounds for the newly generated detection multiplier. For instance, timer adjustment module 42 may cap the detection multiplier at ten, meaning that, no matter the congestion level or timing measurement discerned from the received BFD packets, timer adjustment module 42 does not increase the session detection time by any more than a factor of ten. Similarly, timer adjustment module 42 set a lower bound for the detection multiplier, e.g., at one, so the session detection time does not dip below the negotiated receipt interval.
While various functionalities are described separately with respect to BFD module 39′ and timer adjustment module 42 for purposes of clarity, it will be appreciated that these modules may share or exchange various functionalities described herein. For instance, BFD module 39′ may extract congestion-indicating attributes from received BFD packets, and pass the extracted data to timer adjustment module 42 as calculation parameters. As another example, BFD module 39′ may extract the described timing measurements, and pass the measurements to timer adjustment module 42 as calculation parameters. In other examples, BFD module 39′ is configured to implement a counter for incoming BFD packets, which may generate other parameters for timer adjustment module 42 to utilize in generating new detection multiplier values.
The architecture of router 30 illustrated in
RPD 66 interacts with kernel 72 (e.g., by way of API calls) to update routing information base (RIB) 74 based on routing protocol messages received by router 30. RPD 66 may, for example, execute various routing protocols, such as LDP and RSVP of establish LSPs within a network. RIB 74 may include information defining a topology of a network, including one or more routing tables and/or link-state databases. Kernel 43 executes on master microprocessor 78 and may comprise, for example, a UNIX operating system derivative such as Linux or Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Kernel 72 processes kernel calls from RPD 66 and generates forwarding information in the form of FIBs 76A-76N based on the network topology represented in RIB 74, i.e., performs route resolution. Typically, RPD 66 generates FIBs 76 in the form of radix or other lookup trees to map packet information (e.g., header information having destination information and/or a label stack) to next hops and ultimately to interface ports of interface cards associated with respective PFEs 82. Master microprocessor 78 of kernel 72 then programs PFEs 82 to install copies of the FIBs as software FIBs 86-48N. Microprocessor 78 may comprise one or more general- or special-purpose processors such as a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), or any other equivalent logic device. Accordingly, the terms “processor” or “controller,” as used herein, may refer to any one or more of the foregoing structures or any other structure operable to perform techniques described herein.
Command line interface daemon 64 (“CLI 64”) provides an interface by which an administrator or other management entity may modify the configuration of router 30 using text-based commands. Simple Network Management Protocol daemon 68 (“SNMP 68”) comprises an SNMP agent that receives SNMP commands from a management entity to set and retrieve configuration and management information for router 30. BFD 70 implements BFD protocol-based functionalities in the control-plane of router 30, such as using BFD packet data to update RIB 74 and FIBs 76. Using CLI 64, SNMP 68, and BFD 70, management entities may enable/disable and configure services, install routes, enable/disable and configure rate limiters, and configure interfaces, for example. RPD 66, CLI 64, SNMP 68, and BFD module 70 configure router 30 to implement configured services, add/modify/delete routes, and otherwise modify packet forwarding paths by installing forwarding structures to PFEs 82.
In this example, ASICs 90 are microcode-controlled chipsets programmably configured by a slave microprocessor 84 executing on each of PFEs 82A-82N (e.g., PFE 82A). Specifically, one or more of ASICs 90 is controllable by microcode 92 programmed by slave microprocessor 84. The slave microprocessor 84 programs a hardware FIB 96 into internal memory of ASIC 90 within the data plane 88 based on software FIB 86. When forwarding packets, control logic 94 traverses HW FIB 96 and, upon reaching a FIB entry for the packet (e.g., a leaf node), microcode-implemented control logic 94 automatically selects a forwarding next hop and processes the packets in accordance with the operations defined within the next hop. Additionally, microcode 92 includes BFD module 98, which implements various functionalities in accordance the BFD protocol. As examples, BFD module 98 implements one or more of the adjacency timer, the expiration of which triggers a failure detection of link to another router, and a BFD counter, which maintains a count of BFD packets received as part of a BFD session.
In accordance with the techniques described herein, slave microprocessor 84 implements BFD control 80. BFD control 80, in turn, implements one or more of the dynamic adjacency timer adjustment algorithms described herein. More specifically, microcode-implemented BFD module 98 is configured to communicate information relevant to received BFD packets to BFD control 80. Examples of such information include the value of ECN bits (e.g., bits of the respective ECN fields) of the BFD packets, congestion levels indicated by one or more attributes specified within the BFD packets, and timing data and/or measurements associated with the received BFD packets. Specific implementations are described in greater detail with reference to
Process 100 begins when router 30 establishes a BFD session with a second router (102). For instance, router 30 may establish the BFD session such that forwarding engine 34 sends and receives periodic communications, and communicates pertinent information, such as failures of link(s) and/or peer router(s), to routing engine 32. To detect and remediate communication issues due to failures, routing engine 32 and forwarding engine 34 implement BFD modules 39 and 39′, respectively.
Timer adjustment module 42 detects one or more congestion conditions over the link to the second router (104). In various examples, timer adjustment module 42 detects the congestion condition using attributes specified within the received BFD packets, or using timing data and measurements associated with the received BFD packets. Examples of attributes include the ECN field of the IP header, and congestion levels indicated within control-plane and/or data-plane information of the received BFD packets. Examples of timing measurements include delay and jitter, described above.
Based on the detected congestion condition(s), timer adjustment module 42 adjusts the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer executed by BFD module 39′ (106). More specifically, timer adjustment module 42 may increase the session detection time in cases of heavier congestion (e.g., by generating and applying a greater detection multiplier to the receipt interval), and may reduce the session detection time in cases of lighter or no congestion (e.g., by generating and applying a lesser detection multiplier to the receipt interval). By adjusting the session detection time in this manner, timer adjustment module 42 may mitigate false alarms caused by congestion-based delays, and also mitigate packet loss caused by late detection of legitimate failures.
After timer adjustment module 42 adjusts the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer, BFD module 39′ may continue the current BFD session with the second router (108). More specifically, timer adjustment module adjusts the session detection time during a BFD session, thereby providing dynamic adjacency timer adjustment of the receipt interval for periodic communications. In this manner, the techniques of this disclosure provide a way for a router to adjust a session detection time defined by an adjacency timer without terminating a current BFD session and establishing a new session with updated BFD timer parameters.
Additionally, microcode-implemented BFD module 98 determines one or more attributes specified within the received BFD packet (118). Examples of attributes specified within the received BFD packet may include the ECN field of an IP packet that encapsulates the user datagram protocol (UDP)-based BFD packet, control bits in the BFD packet header such as diagnostic bits, or both. The attributes determined from the BFD packet may include data pertaining to congestion over the network, such as granular congestion data. More specifically, the granular congestion data may indicate levels of congestion, such as high-, mid-, and low-levels of congestion, or a specific value to denote the severity of the congestion. In turn, microcode-implemented BFD module 98 forwards the congestion information, such as the value indicated by the ECN field and/or the granular congestion information, to BFD control 80.
BFD control 80 is configured to detect a congestion condition based on the attribute(s) received from BFD module 98 (120). In examples where BFD control 80 receives only a binary value indicated by the ECN field of the IP header of a received packet, BFD control 80 detects only whether or not congestion exists over the network, but does not detect any more information pertaining to the congestion. Conversely, in examples where BFD control 80 receives more specific congestion based data, such as graduated levels and/or specific congestion values, BFD control 80 may detect the congestion condition in a granular fashion.
Based on the detected congestion condition, BFD control 80 is configured to generate a new detection multiplier (122). For instance, in the binary implementation described above, BFD control 80 may set the new detection multiplier to either a high multiple (in the case of the ECN field of the IP header indicating congestion), or a low multiple (in cases where the ECN field of the IP header indicates absence of congestion). In contrast, in the granular implementations described above, BFD control 80 may set the new detection multiplier to one of a three or more values, such as by selecting a detection multiplier value based on congestion level, or by generating a specific detection multiplier value based on a received congestion value. BFD control 80 applies the new detection multiplier to the negotiated receipt interval to adjust the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer of microcode-implemented BFD module 98 (140). In turn, microcode-implemented BFD module 98 applies the adjusted session detection time to detect BFD failures (124).
Additionally, BFD control 80 imposes the following restrictions on the weighted moving average function. First, f(i) produces a result of zero in all cases where microcode-implemented BFD module 98 recognizes i to have a negative value. Second, the sum of all results of f(i) within the series (or within a window of the series selected by BFD control 80) equals one. These two conditions may be expressed as follows: fi=0∀i<0, and Σi=0N-1fi=1, where N is the window length in terms of number of packets. Examples of weighted moving average functions that BFD control 80 may implement are: fi=0∀i<0;
(a normalized infinite window function), and fi=0∀i<0;
fi=0∀i≧N (examples of normalized flat window functions). Using the weighted moving average of the delays, BFD control 80 detects a congestion condition (136).
Based on the congestion condition, and the results of the weighted moving average functions, BFD control 80 generates a new detection multiplier (138). More specifically, BFD control 80 is configured to generate the new detection multiplier for the (i+1)th BFD packet using the following formula:
where D is the negotiated receipt interval for inbound BFD packets, and a is a constant defined by BFD control 80. BFD control 80 applies the new detection multiplier (mi+1) to the negotiated receipt interval to adjust the session detection time defined by the adjacency timer of microcode-implemented BFD module 98 (140). In turn, microcode-implemented BFD module 98 applies the adjusted session detection time to detect BFD failures beginning with the (i+2)th BFD packet.
BFD control 80 is configured to calculate jitter using the following formula: δi=(di+1−di), where δi represents the jitter associated with the ith BFD packet. After microcode-implemented BFD module 98 receives the (i+2)th BFD packet of the series, BFD control 80 applies the following formula: μdi=Σk=(N-1)k=0fkd(i-k), where μdi represents the weighted moving average delay across the series. Similarly, BFD control 80 derives the average jitter, represented by μδi, using the following formula: μδi=Σk=(N-1)k=0fkδ(i-k). Additionally, BFD control 80 may extract deviation-related data of the jitter, such as the variance of the jitter, for use in determining the detection multiplier. For instance, BFD control 80 calculates the variance of the jitter using the formula
Based on the average jitter and/or values derived from the average jitter, BFD control 80 determines a congestion condition (156).
Based on the congestion condition, and using the jitter and related values, BFD control 80 may generate a new detection multiplier (158). In examples, BFD control 80 applies the following formula to generate the new detection multiplier:
where α and β are constants defined by BFD control 80. As jitter represents the rate of change of delay, BFD control uses three packets, namely, the ith, (i+1)th(i+2)th packets to derive the jitter. In turn, BFD control 80 applies the new detection multiplier m1+2 to the receipt interval defined by the adjacency timer of microcode-implemented BFD module 98 to derive a new session detection time after receipt of the (i+3)th BFD packet (160).
As described above with respect to
The techniques described in this disclosure may be implemented in hardware or any combination of hardware and software (including firmware). Any features described as units, modules, or components may be implemented together in an integrated logic device or separately as discrete but interoperable logic devices. If implemented in hardware, the techniques may be realized in a processor, a circuit, a collection of logic elements, or any other apparatus that performs the techniques described herein. If implemented in software, the techniques may be realized at least in part by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or computer-readable storage device encoded with, having stored thereon, or otherwise comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors, such as programmable processor(s), to perform one or more of the methods described above. The non-transitory computer-readable medium may form part of a computer program product, which may include packaging materials. The non-transitory computer-readable medium may comprise random access memory (RAM) such as synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM), read-only memory (ROM), non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), FLASH memory, magnetic or optical data storage media, and the like. The techniques additionally, or alternatively, may be realized at least in part by a computer readable communication medium that carries or communicates code in the form of instructions or data structures and that can be accessed, read, and/or executed by a computer.
The code may be executed by one or more processors, such as one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), general purpose microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry. Accordingly, the term “processor,” as used herein, may refer to any of the foregoing structures or any other structure suitable for implementation of the techniques described herein. Likewise, the term “control unit,” as used herein, may refer to any of the foregoing structures or any other structure suitable for implementation of the techniques described herein. In addition, in some aspects, the functionality described herein may be provided within dedicated software and hardware units configured to perform the techniques of this disclosure. Depiction of different features as units is intended to highlight different functional aspects of the devices illustrated and does not necessarily imply that such units must be realized by separate hardware or software components. Rather, functionality associated with one or more units may be integrated within common or separate hardware or software components.
Various examples have been described. These and other examples are within the scope of the following claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/730,737, filed Dec. 28, 2012, the entire content of which is incorporated by reference herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5253248 | Dravida et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5613136 | Casavant et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5721855 | Hinton et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5826081 | Zolnowsky | Oct 1998 | A |
5848128 | Frey | Dec 1998 | A |
5933601 | Fanshier et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6052720 | Traversat et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6101500 | Lau | Aug 2000 | A |
6148337 | Estberg et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6163544 | Andersson et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6173411 | Hirst et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6212559 | Bixler et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223260 | Gujral et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6255943 | Lewis et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263346 | Rodriquez | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272537 | Kekic et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6304546 | Natarajan et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6310890 | Choi | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6374329 | McKinney et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389464 | Krishnamurthy et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393481 | Deo et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6405289 | Arimilli et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6453403 | Czajkowski | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6453430 | Singh et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6466973 | Jaffe | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6477566 | Davis et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6477572 | Elderton et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6480955 | DeKoning et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6502131 | Vaid et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507869 | Franke et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6510164 | Ramaswamy et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6516345 | Kracht | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529941 | Haley et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6542934 | Bader et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6563800 | Salo et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6584499 | Jantz et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6618360 | Scoville et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6636242 | Bowman-Amuah | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6662221 | Gonda et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6681232 | Sistanizadeh et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684343 | Bouchier et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6725317 | Bouchier et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738908 | Bonn et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6751188 | Medved et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757897 | Shi et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6804816 | Liu et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6816897 | McGuire | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6816905 | Sheets et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6850253 | Bazerman et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6910148 | Ho et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6922685 | Greene et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6934745 | Krautkremer | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6952728 | Alles et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6982953 | Swales | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6983317 | Bishop et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6990517 | Bevan et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7024450 | Deo et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7055063 | Leymann et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7069344 | Carolan et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7082463 | Bradley et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7082464 | Hasan et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7085277 | Proulx et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7085827 | Ishizaki et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7093280 | Ke et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7099912 | Ishizaki et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7103647 | Aziz | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7120693 | Chang et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7124289 | Suorsa | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7130304 | Aggarwal | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7131123 | Suorsa et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7139263 | Miller et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7151775 | Renwick et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7152109 | Suorsa et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7161946 | Jha | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7184437 | Cole et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7200662 | Hasan et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7206836 | Dinker et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7219030 | Ohtani | May 2007 | B2 |
7236453 | Visser et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7305492 | Bryers et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7310314 | Katz et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7310666 | Benfield et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313611 | Jacobs et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7336615 | Pan et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7359377 | Kompella et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7362700 | Frick et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7363353 | Ganesan et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7379987 | Ishizaki et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7391719 | Ellis et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7406030 | Rijsman | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7406035 | Harvey et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7433320 | Previdi et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7447167 | Nadeau et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7463591 | Kompella et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7471638 | Torrey et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7487232 | Matthews et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7499395 | Rahman et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506194 | Appanna et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7508772 | Ward et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7522599 | Aggarwal et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7523185 | Ng et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7539769 | McGuire | May 2009 | B2 |
7561527 | Katz | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7606898 | Hunt et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7609637 | Doshi et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7639624 | McGee et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7720047 | Katz et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7720061 | Krishnaswamy et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7724677 | Iwami | May 2010 | B2 |
7738367 | Aggarwal et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7760652 | Tsillas et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7764599 | Doi et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7765306 | Filsfils et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7765328 | Bryers et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7813267 | Tsai et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7852778 | Kompella | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7860981 | Vinokour et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
7911938 | Florit et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7940646 | Aggarwal et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7957330 | Bahadur et al. | Jun 2011 | B1 |
7990888 | Nadeau et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8019835 | Suorsa et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8077726 | Kumar et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8254271 | Nadeau et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
8266264 | Hasan et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8339959 | Moisand et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8370528 | Bryers et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8488444 | Filsfils et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8503293 | Raszuk | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8543718 | Rahman et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8693398 | Chaganti et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8797886 | Kompella et al. | Aug 2014 | B1 |
8902780 | Hegde et al. | Dec 2014 | B1 |
8948001 | Guichard et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8953460 | Addepalli et al. | Feb 2015 | B1 |
9455894 | Neelam et al. | Sep 2016 | B1 |
20010042190 | Tremblay et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020007443 | Gharachorloo et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020032725 | Araujo et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020038339 | Xu | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020093954 | Weil et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020105972 | Richter et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120488 | Bril et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020141343 | Bays | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020158900 | Hsieh et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165727 | Greene et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169975 | Good | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020191014 | Hsieh et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194497 | McGuire | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194584 | Suorsa et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030005090 | Sullivan et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009552 | Benfield et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030055933 | Ishizaki et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030097428 | Afkhami et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030112749 | Hassink et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030123457 | Koppol | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030149746 | Baldwin et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040024869 | Davies | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040116070 | Fishman et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20050013310 | Banker et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021713 | Dugan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050063458 | Miyake | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050083936 | Ma | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050175017 | Christensen et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050195741 | Doshi et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050259571 | Battou | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050259634 | Ross | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050281192 | Nadeau et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060018266 | Seo | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060095538 | Rehman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060133300 | Lee et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060233107 | Croak et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060239201 | Metzger et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060262772 | Guichard et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060285500 | Booth, III et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070014231 | Sivakumar et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070021132 | Jin et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070041554 | Newman et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061103 | Patzschke et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070147281 | Dale | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070165515 | Vasseur | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070180104 | Filsfils et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070180105 | Filsfils et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070207591 | Rahman et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070220252 | Sinko | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070263836 | Huang | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070280102 | Vasseur et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080004782 | Kobayashi et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080034120 | Oyadomari et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080049622 | Previdi et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080074997 | Bryant et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080163291 | Fishman et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080225731 | Mori | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080247324 | Nadeau et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080253295 | Yumoto et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090016213 | Lichtwald | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090019141 | Bush et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090046579 | Lu et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090046723 | Rahman et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090201799 | Lundstrom et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090225650 | Vasseur | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090232029 | Abu-Hamdeh et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090279440 | Wong et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100299319 | Parson et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110019550 | Bryers et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110063973 | VenkataRaman et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110170408 | Furbeck et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20130028099 | Birajdar et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130086144 | Wu | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130185767 | Tirupachur Comerica et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20140149819 | Lu et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20150063117 | Diburro et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1367750 | Dec 2003 | EP |
1816801 | Aug 2007 | EP |
1861963 | Dec 2007 | EP |
1864449 | Dec 2007 | EP |
1891526 | Feb 2008 | EP |
1891526 | Feb 2012 | EP |
2006104604 | Oct 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
RFC3168 “The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP”, Sep. 2001. |
“ActiveXperts Ping backgrounds (PING is part of the ActiveSocket Toolkit),” ActiveSocket Network Communication Toolkit 2.4, Activexperts, www.activexQerts.com/activsocket/toolkits/ning.html, last printed Nov. 10, 2005, 3 pp. |
“Configure an Unnumbered Interface,” www.juniper.net/tech,nubs/software/junos/junos56/index.html, last printed Nov. 7, 2005, 1 p. |
“Configure the loopback Interface,” www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/iunos/junos56/index.html, Last printed Nov. 7, 2005, 2 pp. |
“ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol),” Data Network Resource, www.rhyshaden.com/icmp.html, last printed Nov. 10, 2005, 4 pp. |
“A primer on Internet and TCP/IP Tools and Utilities,” RFC 2151, www.research.org/rfcview/RFC/2151.html, last printed Nov. 9, 2005, 3 pp. |
“Traceroute,” Webopedia, http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/T/traceroute.html, Aug. 26, 2004, 1 p. |
“Using the IP unnumbered configuration FAQ,” APNIC, https://www.apnic.net/get-ip/faqs/ip-unnumbered, Jul. 1, 2005, 2 pp. |
Aggarwal et al., “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5884, Cisco Systems, Inc., Jun. 2010, 12 pp. |
Aggarwal, “OAM Mechanisms in MPLS Layer 2 Transport Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Oct. 2004, pp. 124-130. |
Atlas, “ICMP Extensions for Unnumbered Interfaces,” draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-01, Feb. 2006, 8 pp. |
Berkowitz, “Router Renumbering Guide,” Network Working Group, RFC 2072, Jan. 1997, 41 pp. |
Bonica et al., “Generic Tunnel Tracing Protocol (GTTP) Specification,” draft-bonica- tunproto-OI.txt, IETF Standard-Working-Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Jul. 2001, 20 pp. |
Chen et al., “Dynamic Capability for BGP-4,” Network Working Group, Internet Draft, draft-ieff-idr-dynamic-cap-03.txt, Dec. 2002, 6 pp. |
Fairhurst, Gorry, “Internet Control Message protocol,” Internet Control Protocol, (ICMP), www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/course/inet-nages/icmp.html, last printed Sep. 6, 2006, 3 pp. |
Harmon, William “32-Bit Bus Master Ethernet Interface for the 68030 (Using the Macintosh SE/30),” Apr. 1993, 10 pp. |
Hedge et al., “Multipoint BFD for MPLS,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, draft-chandra-hedge-mpoint-bfd-for-mpls-00.txt, Mar. 2012, 12 pp. |
Katz et al., “Biderectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multihop Paths,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5883, Juniper Networks, Jun. 2010, 6 pp. |
Katz et al., “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5881, Juniper Networks, Jun. 2010, 7 pp. |
Katz et al., “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5880, Juniper Networks, Jun. 2010, 49 pp. |
Katz et al., “Generic Application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5882, Juniper Networks, Jun. 2010, 15 pp. |
Katz et al., “BFD for Multipoint Networks,” Network Working Group, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-bfd-multipoint-00.txt, Oct. 2011, 29 pp. |
Kolon, “BFD spots router forwarding failures,” Network World, www.networkworld.com/news/tech/2005/030705techugdate.html, Mar. 7, 2005, 3 pp. |
Kompella et al., “Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures,” Network Working Group, RFC 4379, Cisco Systems, Inc., Feb. 2006, 50 pp. |
Kompella et al., Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol—Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE), Network Working Group, RFC 3477, Jan. 2003, 8 pp. |
Mannie, “Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Architecture,” Network Working Group, Internet draft, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-07.txt, May 2003, 56 pp. |
Muller, “Managing Service Level Agreements,” International Journal of Network Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., May 1999, vol. 9, Issue 3, pp. 155-166. |
Nadeau et al., “Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV),” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), RFC 5885, Cisco Systems, Inc., Jun. 2010, 11 pp. |
Papavassilion, “Network and service management for wide-area electronic commerce networks,” International Journal of Network Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Mar. 2001, vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 75-90. |
Sangli et al., “Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP,” Network Working Group, Internet Draft, draft-ietf-idr-restart-06.txt, httn://toolsietf.ort/html/draft-ieff-idr-restart-06, Jan. 2003, 10 pp. |
Saxena et al., Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Mpls -Extensions to LSP Ping, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) RFC 6425, Nov. 2011, 28 pp. |
Schmidt, Douglas C., “A Family of Design Patterns for Flexibly Configuring Network Services in Distributed Systems,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Configurable Distributed Systems, May 6-8, 1996, IEEE Press, pp. 124-135. |
Sun Hai-feng, “Advanced TCP Port Scan and it's Response,” O.L. Automation 2005, vol. 24, No. 4, China Academic Electronic Publishing House, Apr. 24, 2005, 2 pp. (Abstract only). |
Troutman, “DP83916EB-AT: High Performance AT Compatible Bus Master Ethernet Adapter Card,” Nov. 1992, 34 pp. |
Mukhi et al., “Internet Control Message Protocol ICMP,” www.vijaymukhi.com/vmis/icmp, last visited Sep. 6, 2006, 5 pp. |
Zvon, RFC 2072, [Router Renumbering Guide]—Router Identifiers, Chapter 8.3, Unnumbered Interfaces, www.zvon.org/tmRFC/RFC2072/output/chapter8.html , last printed on Nov. 7, 2005, 2 pp. |
H3C S3610 & S5510 Series Ethernet Switches (Version: 20081229-C-1.01, Release 5303, 2006-2008, Command Manual-BFD-GR), 2008, 13 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/617,777, filed by Meher Aditya Kumar Addepalli, on Feb. 9, 2015. |
Prosecution History from U.S. Appl. No. 13/730,737, dated Jul. 17, 2014 through Nov. 19, 2015, 112 pp. |
“DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification,” Transmission Control Protocol, RFC 793, Sep. 1981, 90 pp. |
Boney, “Cisco IOS in a Nutshell,” 2nd Edition, published Aug. 2005, 16 pp. |
Nichols, et al., “Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers,” Network Working Group, RFC 2474, Dec. 1998, 19 pp. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13730737 | Dec 2012 | US |
Child | 15018669 | US |