Despite the commencement of a shift towards IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6), many Internet resources are still only accessible via IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4) due to the complexity and expense of transitioning to IPv6.
Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the following detailed description and the accompanying drawings.
The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or a processor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions stored on and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In this specification, these implementations, or any other form that the invention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as a processor or a memory described as being configured to perform a task may be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configured to perform the task at a given time or a specific component that is manufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’ refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing cores configured to process data, such as computer program instructions.
A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention is provided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate the principles of the invention. The invention is described in connection with such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to any embodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims, and the invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications, and equivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the invention. These details are provided for the purpose of example, and the invention may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention has not been described in detail so that the invention is not unnecessarily obscured.
As the long-anticipated address exhaustion of IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4) becomes imminent, mechanisms to transition to IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) have become increasingly prevalent. Although many networking devices are now dual stack and support both IPv4 and IPv6, most existing ISP (Internet Service Provider) networks still only support native IPv4 connectivity. As a result, a very small percentage of existing Internet traffic comprises solely native IPv6 traffic. Rather, a significant portion of existing IPv6 traffic employs a tunneling mechanism to carry IPv6 traffic over an IPv4 network.
In contrast,
In many cases, IPv6 tunneling over an IPv4 network introduces performance degradations, for example, due to the latency inherent in the extra transmissions as well as performance limitations imposed by tunnel broker service gateways (e.g., router 210 of
Techniques for more intelligently routing or directing traffic based on expected performance are disclosed herein. Although dual stack devices capable of communicating using IPv4 and/or IPv6 are described in some of the given examples, the techniques disclosed herein may be employed with respect to any device capable of communicating using any one or more protocol stacks or communication formats.
Traffic in network environment 300 is managed by traffic manager 302. In some embodiments, traffic manager 302 comprises a redirection node or host configured to direct a client 304 to an appropriate server 306 capable of servicing a client request. Traffic manager 302 may be employed by a publisher to manage client requests for content published by the publisher. In such cases, client requests for content published by the publisher may be directed or redirected to traffic manager 302, for example, via a CNAME (Canonical Name) record of DNS. Traffic manager 302, in turn, redirects clients 304 to appropriate servers 306 to service client requests. For example, traffic manager 302 may redirect a client in a manner that strives to optimize performance in servicing the client request and/or according to a traffic management policy specified by an associated publisher whose content is being requested. In some embodiments, traffic manager 302 is natively connected to a plurality of networks and/or capable of communicating via a plurality of communication formats such as IPv4 and IPv6. Although described as a centralized, web-based service with respect to the example of
Server 306(a) and server 306(b) are configured to serve content. For example, server 306(a) and server 306(b) may be configured to serve content published by a publisher. In such cases, servers 306(a) and 306(b) may belong to the publisher (e.g., the servers may comprise publisher origin servers), a content delivery network (CDN) contracted by the publisher, or another third party entity employed to serve content on behalf of the publisher. Each of servers 306(a) and 306(b) is configured to communicate via a prescribed communication format. In the given example, server 306(a) is configured to communicate via IPv4 while server 306(b) is configured to communicate via IPv6. Although depicted in
In some embodiments, traffic manager 302 takes into consideration the communication format that gives a client the best expected performance when making a redirection decision. In some cases, for example, better performance may be expected by redirecting a client to a server connected to a network to which the client is natively connected. For instance, better performance may be expected by redirecting a native IPv4 client 304(a) to a native IPv4 server 306(a) and similarly a native IPv6 client 304(b) to a native IPv6 server 306(b) to avoid the performance degradations inherent in tunneling communications over otherwise incompatible networks. In some embodiments, traffic manager 302 is configured to determine whether a communication received from a client has been tunneled using a tunneling service. A tunneled communication may be identified, for example, by comparing a source IP address of the communication with a list or database of known IP addresses associated with tunneling services. In some embodiments, a client identified by traffic manager 302 to be using a tunneling service may be redirected by traffic manager 302 to a server connected to a network to which the client has native connectivity so that further tunneling can be avoided.
As an example, consider a dual stack client 304(a) natively connected to only an IPv4 network but configured to communicate via IPv6 whenever an IPv6 destination is available, e.g., whenever a destination domain name is resolvable into an IPv6 address. In this example, client 304(a) connects to an IPv6 destination using a tunneling service that directs IPv6 communications to and from client 304(a) via an IPv6 tunnel over an IPv4 network and via a dual stack router of the tunneling service that is natively connected to both IPv4 and IPv6 networks as described above with respect to
In some embodiments, a determination by traffic manager 302 of the manner in which to redirect a client 304 is generally based on optimizing expected performance. Although in some cases avoiding tunneling may be expected to optimize performance, tunneling may offer improved performance in some scenarios. For example, tunneling may be expected to provide improved performance when a native network is experiencing outages or is congested, or, for instance, if the nodes involved in tunneled communications are all geographically located in closer proximity than the nodes involved in corresponding native communications. Thus, if tunneled communications are expected to result in improved performance, traffic manager 302 may redirect a client to a server that entails tunneled communications between the two devices. For example, IPv4 client 304(a) may be redirected by traffic manager 302 to IPv6 server 306(b) and likewise an IPv6 client 304(b) may be redirected by traffic manager 302 to IPv4 server 306(a).
In various embodiments, traffic manager 302 may facilitate and/or mediate client-server communications with respect to any communication protocols such as HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), FTP (File Transfer Protocol), RTMP (Real Time Messaging Protocol), RTMP-E (Encrypted Real Time Messaging Protocol), RTMP over HTTP, torrent style protocols, DNS protocols, etc. In some embodiments, traffic manager 302 is at least in part configured with DNS functionality. For example, traffic manager 302 may be employed to resolve or aid in resolving DNS requests from clients 304. In some such cases, an expected optimal protocol stack for communication may be selected by traffic manager 302 for a client 304 at the DNS level, and traffic manager 302 may accordingly respond to a DNS request from a client 304 with an appropriate DNS response such as an A record or an AAAA record for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively.
Most existing network devices are dual stack and capable of communicating via both IPv4 and IPv6. However, all devices may not be dual stack in the future once migration to IPv6 is complete. In such cases, any appropriate techniques to determine whether a device is dual stack may be employed. Such techniques may generally be employed to determine whether a device supports any one or more communication formats. In some embodiments, test content accessible only via a prescribed communication format is embedded in a resource such as a web page accessed by a client to determine whether the client is capable of accessing the test content and thus to deduce whether the client is capable of communicating using the prescribed communication format. For example, IPv4 and/or IPv6 test content may be embedded into a web page accessed by a client to determine whether the client is capable of communicating via IPv4, IPv6, or both. The results of such tests may be stored in one or more browser cookies at the client so that the tests do not have to be repeatedly performed for the same client at least until the cookies expire. A client is intelligently redirected to an appropriate server based on the communication format or protocol stack via which it is capable of most efficiently communicating.
In some embodiments, various types of information may be learned and/or stored by traffic manager 302. For example, lists of known or determined native IP (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) addresses may be maintained in databases. Such databases of native IP addresses may be employed, for example, when determining whether client communications comprise native or tunneled communications. In some cases, client information such as IP addresses and compatible protocol stacks may be learned and stored for future use so that such information does not have to be repeatedly determined for a particular client and may only periodically be re-checked for changes. In various embodiments, any other appropriate metrics may be tracked and later used for making more dynamic and granular redirection decisions.
As a result of process 400, for example, a native IPv4 client (including a native IPv4 client communicating via IPv6 tunneling) may be redirected to a native IPv4 server, and a native IPv6 client (including a native IPv6 client communicating via IPv4 tunneling) may be redirected to a native IPv6 server. Alternatively, if tunneling is expected to provide better performance than communications over a native network, a client may be redirected using process 400 to a server that entails tunneled communications between the devices. For example, a native IPv4 client (including a native IPv4 client already communicating via IPv6 tunneling) may be redirected to a native IPv6 server, and a native IPv6 client (including a native IPv6 client already communicating via IPv4 tunneling) may be redirected to a native IPv4 server. In general, process 400 may be employed to select and direct a client via one of a plurality of possible network routes that is expected to give optimal performance.
Numerous existing internet resources such as web servers are only IPv4 enabled. It may be desirable for such resources to be IPv6 enabled as well. For example, a server associated with a publisher may only be capable of natively communicating via an IPv4 network, but the publisher may desire that its content also be natively accessible via IPv6. In some embodiments, a proxy server that translates content defined in a first format into a second format is employed to make a resource natively accessible in the second format. For example, a proxy server natively connected to both IPv4 and IPv6 networks may be employed to proxy content from an IPv4 server over an IPv4 network, translate the content into IPv6, and natively serve the IPv6 content to IPv6 users over an IPv6 network.
Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limited to the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementing the invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and not restrictive.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6085193 | Malkin et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6785704 | McCanne | Aug 2004 | B1 |
7305252 | Britt et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7391768 | Samprathi et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7436776 | Koga | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7483941 | Carlson | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7526562 | Samprathi et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7543052 | Cesa Klein | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7653689 | Champagne et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7657642 | Blanchet | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7684382 | Ishii | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7860964 | Brady et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8151002 | Suzuki et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8429630 | Nickolov et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8861525 | Durand et al. | Oct 2014 | B1 |
9083652 | Lyon | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9331979 | Lyon | May 2016 | B2 |
9537820 | Lyon | Jan 2017 | B2 |
20020010783 | Primak et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020099957 | Kramer et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116444 | Chaudhri et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020161890 | Chen | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030014503 | Legout et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030046703 | Knowles et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030149581 | Chaudhri et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20050010537 | Ettinger | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20060015647 | Kang et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060104226 | Ahn | May 2006 | A1 |
20060123079 | Sturniolo et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060242072 | Peled et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070055765 | Lisiecki et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067424 | Raciborski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070168440 | Cobelens | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070294419 | Ulevitch | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080082490 | MacLaurin et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080215718 | Stolorz et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090055891 | Okamoto et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090144412 | Ferguson et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090262741 | Junck et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090276771 | Nickolov et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090327517 | Sivasubramanian et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100042743 | Jeon et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100260203 | Moon et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100325240 | Drako et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110013631 | Frydman et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110016214 | Jackson | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110154443 | Thakur et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20130103520 | Lyon | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130103556 | Lyon | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130103784 | Lyon | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130103785 | Lyon | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130103853 | Lyon | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130212266 | Lyon | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130254333 | Lyon | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130254385 | Lyon | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140304386 | Lyon | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140344417 | Lyon | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150095491 | Lyon | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150312746 | Lu | Oct 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1322094 | Jul 2003 | EP |
Entry |
---|
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/246,741, mailed Apr. 19, 2012. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/246,741, mailed Nov. 16, 2011. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 mailed Oct. 9, 2014. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 mailed Jun. 16, 2014. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 mailed Aug. 8, 2013. |
IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP), RFC 5572 submitted on Feb. 2010. |
Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition Algorithm, IETF Internal-Draft submitted on Oct. 24, 2004. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 mailed Feb. 27, 2013. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 14/664,880 mailed Nov. 16, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/655,900 mailed Nov. 9, 2015. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Jan. 7, 2013. |
Requirement for Restriction/Election for U.S. Application No. 12/655,900 mailed Nov. 10, 2011. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/655,900 mailed Mar. 2, 2012. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 12/655,900 mailed Nov. 8, 2012. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Oct. 23, 2014. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,722 mailed Dec. 16, 2014. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 14/306,176 mailed Mar. 19, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 14/306,176 mailed Sep. 19, 2014. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,722 mailed Jun. 11, 2015. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/849,031 mailed Apr. 29, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/849,525 mailed Mar. 27, 2015. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/019,953 mailed Jun. 23, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,826 mailed Aug. 11, 2014. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,826 mailed Oct. 2, 2013. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,826 mailed Apr. 30, 2013. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Apr. 11, 2014. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Aug. 8, 2013. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Mar. 1, 2013. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/849,525 mailed Aug. 26, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 14/452,682 mailed Aug. 18, 2015. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/019,953 mailed Oct. 26, 2012. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/244,722 mailed Nov. 10, 2011. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 mailed Sep. 4, 2016. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 13/194,825 filed May 9, 2015. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 13/849,525 filed Jan. 27, 2016. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 mailed Jun. 26, 2015. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 13/020,762 filed Feb. 16, 2015. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 14/306,176 mailed Feb. 2, 2016. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 14/306,176 Filed Sep. 15, 2015. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 13/849,031 mailed Feb. 1, 2016. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 14/306,176 Filed Aug. 26, 2015. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 13/019,953 mailed Mar. 22, 2016. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 13/019,953 filed Nov. 30, 2015. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/613,187 mailed Mar. 15, 2013. |
Non-Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 14/546,770 mailed Apr. 22, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/452,682 mailed Dec. 7, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/246,741 mailed Nov. 18, 2016. |
Appeal Brief for U.S. Appl. No. 14/664,880 mailed Oct. 20, 2016. |
Final Rejection for U.S. Appl. No. 13/847,424 mailed Dec. 19, 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130103805 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |