The present invention relates to the field of data communications. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for resource allocation and reclamation for on-demand address pools.
The growth of the Internet appears to be exponential. Tens of thousands of networks are now connected to the Internet and the number is close to doubling every year. Unfortunately, however, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are not infinite and it is rather expensive to procure more IP addresses. With the increase in the number of users of the Internet, Telcos (Telecommunication companies) and ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are faced with an increasing shortage of IP addresses.
Each service to which a user may be connected has an associated IP address space. That is, a certain range of addresses may address that space. The range may be contiguous, discontiguous, or a combination of both. For example, Corp A may have an intranet service having all IP addresses which start with “10.1”—this may be denoted “10.1.x.x” where x can be any value between 0 and 255. It may also be denoted “10.1.0.0; 255.255.0.0” where “10.1.0.0” represents the IP address and “255.255.0.0” represents the subnet mask. Those of skill in the art will recognize that a 255 in the subnet mask field represents a binary 1111 1111 and amounts to a requirement that the corresponding field of the IP address must match bit for bit in order to achieve a match. On the other hand, a 0 in the subnet mask field represents a binary 0000 0000 and amounts to no requirement for any match. For example, a service having an address space of “0.0.0.0; 0.0.0.0” represents the Internet, i.e., all IP addresses are within this space. Note that since the subnet mask is 0.0.0.0 the IP address could be set to any value and it would yield the same result.
The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) has been developed to provide an automated assignment of IP addresses and to help solve the shortage of IP addresses. Conventional DHCP operation is as follows: When a DHCP client computer attempts an Internet connection, it broadcasts a DHCP request asking for any DHCP server on the network to provide it with an IP address and configuration parameters. A DHCP server on the network that is authorized to configure this client will offer an IP address by sending a reply to the client. Upon receiving this offer, the client may decide to accept it or wait for additional offers from other DHCP servers on the network. At the end, the client chooses and accepts one offer, and the chosen DHCP server sends an acknowledgement with the offered IP address having an associated “lease” time (and any other configuration parameters the client might have requested). During the lifetime of the lease, the client will repeatedly ask the server to renew. If the client chooses not to renew or if the client machine is shut down, the lease eventually expires. Once the lease expires, the IP address can be “recycled” and given to another machine.
The RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) protocol is typically used to authenticate a user and to associate the user with a remote domain and associated routing table. Like DHCP, RADIUS can also be used to assign an IP address to a remote user.
Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) sessions are typically terminated on a home gateway at a remote domain and the owner of the remote domain is responsible for address assignment. In this case, the home gateway is configured so as to implement DHCP-like functionality with IP address pools so as to dynamically allocate IP addresses. The home gateway distributes IP addresses to users (end-users of the Telco or ISP) when the users log-in. The home gateway also revokes IP addresses when the users log-out, making those IP addresses available to other users.
The network edge is the point where customer traffic enters a service provider's network. Traffic can arrive at the edge via access technologies including dial, IP, ATM, Frame Relay, leased line, wireless, Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) and cable. An edge switch or edge router aggregates traffic from all or some of these access interfaces and forwards packets over a multiplexed packet network core.
Service providers have begun handling management of IP addresses for owners of remote domains. In these cases, PPP sessions are terminated at the service provider's premises on an edge router. The owner of the remote domain provides the service provider with a pool of IP addresses to manage on behalf of the remote domain. An edge router of the service provider assigns IP addresses to remote users (users of the remote domain) as needed. Whenever an edge router assigns an IP address to a remote user, it must insert a route to that user in a routing table designated for the remote domain. This update must be propagated to corresponding routing tables in each edge router in the network. This is explained below in more detail with reference to
However, maintaining routing information for each IP address is expensive with respect to network bandwidth consumption because each time an address is added or removed, the event must be broadcast so that other network entities know which edge router is handling the address. Moreover, this problem of bandwidth consumption increases and becomes more acute during peak use hours. Additionally, the routing tables grow larger and more difficult to manage as the size of the network grows.
An improvement is made possible by statically configuring local IP address pools on each edge router. Each edge router includes at least one local IP address pool designated for a remote domain. Each edge router also includes a routing table for each remote domain supported by the edge router. Local IP address pools are divided into groups of contiguous IP addresses or subnets. Summarized routes corresponding to all subnets in an address pool are inserted into the edge router routing table associated with the pool. Local IP address pools allow relatively efficient route summarization because fewer routing table updates are required. This is explained below in more detail with reference to
Unfortunately, statically configured local IP address pools have their own disadvantages. It is possible to overutilize IP addresses for one edge router-remote domain combination while simultaneously underutilizing IP addresses for another edge router configured to accept connections for the same remote domain. For example, suppose edge router 1 and edge router 2 are configured with 10 IP addresses each for connections to a particular remote domain. Once edge router 1 allocates all 10 IP addresses, further requests to edge router 1 from remote users of the remote domain will result in denial of service, even if edge router 2 has allocated only 2 of its 10 IP addresses.
As mentioned above, both the DHCP and RADIUS protocols can be used to assign IP addresses. However, these protocols assign a host address to a remote user. The edge router can be configured to autosummarize the host routes before redistributing them. Unfortunately, route summarization is inefficient in this case because remote users log on and off indeterminately, making it difficult to have a contiguous set of IP addresses that can be summarized. Furthermore, it takes time to propagate a newly inserted route to all edge routers. A remote user has limited connectivity during this period. Another disadvantage is that updates must be sent to each edge router whenever a remote user logs on or off.
What is needed is a solution that provides dynamic and relatively efficient allocation of remote domain IP addresses between one or more edge routers. A further need exists for such a solution that uses open and well-understood standards.
A method for on-demand management of Internet Protocol (IP) address pools includes allocating an unused IP address from a local IP address pool designated for a remote domain if a request to connect to the remote domain is received and deallocating an IP address if the IP address is released. The local IP address pool includes at least one subnet dynamically assigned from a global IP address pool. Each of the subnets specifies a contiguous set of one or more IP addresses. IP addresses are allocated using a first-assigned-subnet-first policy, wherein an IP address is allocated from a least recently assigned subnet having at least one unallocated IP address. According to one aspect, subnets are deassigned using a last-assigned-subnet-first policy, wherein the deassigned subnet is the most recently assigned subnet having no allocated IP addresses. According to another aspect, subnet assignment is triggered by an IP address allocation event. According to another aspect, subnet deallocation is triggered by an IP address deallocation event.
An apparatus for on-demand management of Internet Protocol (IP) address pools includes an allocator to allocate an unused IP address from a local IP address pool designated for a remote domain if a request to connect to the remote domain is received and a deallocator to deallocate an IP address if the IP address is unused. The local IP address pool includes at least one subnet dynamically assigned from a global IP address pool. Each of the subnets specifies a contiguous set of one or more IP addresses. LP addresses are allocated using a first-assigned-subnet-first policy. The allocator and the deallocator are coupled to the local IP address pool and a global IP address pool interface.
The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated into and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate one or more embodiments of the present invention and, together with the detailed description, serve to explain the principles and implementations of the invention.
In the drawings:
Embodiments of the present invention are described herein in the context of a system and method for resource allocation and reclamation for on-demand address pools. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that the following detailed description of the present invention is illustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. Other embodiments of the present invention will readily suggest themselves to such skilled persons having the benefit of this disclosure. Reference will now be made in detail to implementations of the present invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The same reference indicators will be used throughout the drawings and the following detailed description to refer to the same or like parts.
In the interest of clarity, not all of the routine features of the implementations described herein are shown and described. It will, of course, be appreciated that in the development of any such actual implementation, numerous implementation-specific decisions must be made in order to achieve the developer's specific goals, such as compliance with application- and business-related constraints, and that these specific goals will vary from one implementation to another and from one developer to another. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effort might be complex and time-consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine undertaking of engineering for those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of this disclosure.
In the context of the present invention, the term “network” includes local area networks, wide area networks, the Internet, cable television systems, telephone systems, wireless telecommunications systems, fiber optic networks, ATM networks, frame relay networks, satellite communications systems, and the like. Such networks are well known in the art and consequently are not further described here.
In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, the components, processes and/or data structures may be implemented using C or C++ programs running on high performance computers (such as an Enterprise 2000™ server running Sun Solaris™ as its operating system. The Enterprise 2000™ server and Sun Solaris™ operating system are products available from Sun Microsystems, Inc. of Mountain View, Calif.). Different implementations may be used and may include other types of operating systems, computing platforms, computer programs, firmware, computer languages and/or general-purpose machines. In addition, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that devices of a less general purpose nature, such as hardwired devices, field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), or the like, may also be used without departing from the scope and spirit of the inventive concepts disclosed herein.
The authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) service performs user authentication, user authorization and user accounting functions. It may be a Cisco ACS™ product such as Cisco Access Register™ or Cisco Secure™, both available from Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, Calif., or an equivalent product. In accordance with a presently preferred embodiment of the present invention, the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) protocol is used as the communication protocol for carrying AAA information. RADIUS is an Internet standard track protocol for carrying authentication, authorization, accounting and configuration information between devices that desire to authenticate their links and a shared AAA or AAA proxy service. Those of ordinary skill in the art will realize that other protocols such as TACACS+ (Tools & Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems) or DIAMETER can be used as acceptable communications links between the various communications devices that encompass the data communication network and still be within the inventive concepts disclosed herein. RADIUS, TACAS+, and DIAMETER are protocols known by those of ordinary skill in the art and thus will not be further discussed other than in the context of the present invention in order to avoid over-complicating the disclosure.
According to embodiments of the present invention, a global IP address pool maintains a pool or block of IP addresses for one or more remote domains. Each pool is divided into subnets and these subnets are assigned to edge routers when requested. An edge router includes at least one local IP address pool configured for at least one remote domain supported by the edge router. IP addresses are allocated using a first-assigned-subnet-first policy, wherein an IP address is allocated from a least recently assigned subnet having at least one unallocated IP address. The edge router makes subnet requests and releases subnets based upon local IP address pool utilization. Dynamic allocation of subnets between local IP address pools allows relatively efficient route summarization as well as relatively efficient utilization of a remote domain's IP address space.
Turning now to
One or more of remote domains 382-392 provide a service provider with a set of IP addresses for the service provider to manage on behalf of the remote domains. The number of remote domains illustrated is not intended to be in any way limiting. The service provider stores information about these IP addresses in global IP address pool 380. The service provider may also configure edge router (300, 305) with one or more subnets for one or more remote domains. In operation, address manager (370, 365) receives a PPP connection request and allocates an IP address from the local IP address pool designated for the remote domain being connected to. The IP address is returned to the local IP address pool when the PPP session ends.
According to one embodiment of the present invention, Local IP address pools monitor (320, 325) monitors local IP address pool utilization. Local IP address pools monitor (320, 325) issues a request for an additional subnet when local IP address pool utilization exceeds a high watermark. Local IP address pools monitor (320, 325) also releases a subnet when local IP address pool utilization drops below a low watermark.
According to another embodiment of the present invention, subnet assignment and deassignment are event-driven. The address manager (370, 365) includes increased functionality in lieu of the local IP address pool monitor (320, 325). Address manager (370, 365) determines whether local IP address pool utilization exceeds a high watermark whenever an IP address is allocated. An additional subnet is requested when local IP address pool utilization exceeds the high watermark. Address manager (370, 365) also determines whether local IP address pool utilization exceeds a low watermark whenever an IP address is deallocated. A subnet is released when local IP address pool utilization drops below a low watermark.
According to embodiments of the present invention, IP addresses are allocated from subnets on a first-assigned-subnet-first basis. In other words, if more than one subnet assigned to the remote domain have an unallocated IP address, an IP address is allocated from the subnet that was least recently assigned to the local address pool. Additionally, subnets are released or deassigned on a last-assigned-subnet-first basis. In other words, if more than one subnet assigned to the remote domain have no allocated IP addresses and if the determination to release a subnet has been made, the subnet that was most recently assigned to the local address pool is released.
Turning now to
Turning now to
Still referring to
Turning now to
Turning now to
Still referring to
Referring to
Local IP address pools storage 820 includes at least one local IP address pool that is designated for a particular remote domain. As shown in
In operation, IP address pool configurer 830 configures at least one local IP address pool and associated routing table. IP address allocator 850 receives a PPP session request. IP address allocator 850 uses a first-assigned-subnet-first policy to allocate an IP address from the local IP address pool designated for the remote domain being connected to. IP address deallocator 845 releases the IP address when the PPP session ends.
Still referring to
Referring to
In operation, IP address pool configurer 930 configures at least one local IP address pool and associated routing table. IP address allocator 950 receives a PPP session request. IP address allocator 950 uses a first-assigned-subnet-first policy to allocate an IP address from the local IP address pool designated for the remote domain being connected to. IP address deallocator 945 releases the IP address when the PPP session ends.
Still referring to
Turning now to
The local IP address pool 1000 also includes an increase increment size 1020 and a decrease increment size 1025. The increase increment size 1020 indicates the number of IP addresses to request when IP address utilization exceeds the high watermark 1005. The decrease increment size 1025 indicates the number of addresses to release when the IP address utilization falls below the low watermark 1010.
The local IP address pool 1000 also includes the assigned subnets 1035, an indication of which IP addresses are allocated 1040 and the remote domain ID 1030 associated with the subnets in the local IP address pool.
Turning now to
Turning now to
Turning now to
Turning now to
According to one embodiment of the present invention, the size of a requested subnet is based upon the initial local IP address pool size. According to another embodiment of the present invention, the size of the requested subnet is based upon the current local IP address pool size. According to another embodiment of the present invention, the size of a requested subnet is predetermined. The size of a released subnet may also be predetermined relative to the initial local IP address pool size, or relative to the current local IP address pool size.
Turning now to
Referring to
Referring to
Embodiments of the present invention have a number of advantages. Searching for a releasable subnet is simplified since allocating an IP address from earlier-assigned subnets means that releasable subnets tend to be one of the later-assigned subnets. Thus, searching for a releasable subnet beginning with the latest-assigned subnet reduces the number of subnets that need to be searched. Additionally, the same IP address allocation policy means that addresses tend to be allocated from relatively few subnets, thus allowing improved route summarization.
Moreover, grouping allocated addresses in a relatively small number of subnets increases the probability of having a releasable subnet when utilization is low. The released subnet can then be assigned to another part of the network, allowing relatively efficient utilization of the available IP address space.
While embodiments and applications of this invention have been shown and described, it would be apparent to those skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure that many more modifications than mentioned above are possible without departing from the inventive concepts herein. The invention, therefore, is not to be restricted except in the spirit of the appended claims.
This application is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 09/874,520, filed Jun. 4, 2001 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,197,549 in the name of inventors Hussein Salama and Purnam Sheth, entitled “On-demand Address Pools”, commonly assigned herewith.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5241594 | Kung | Aug 1993 | A |
5283783 | Nguyen et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5287103 | Kasprzyk et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5361250 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5367635 | Bauer et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5430715 | Corbalis et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5555244 | Gupta et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5561703 | Arledge et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5581478 | Cruse et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5592538 | Kosowsky et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5610910 | Focsaneanu et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5621721 | Vatuone | Apr 1997 | A |
5655077 | Jones et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5671354 | Ito et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5673265 | Gupta et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5678006 | Valizadeh et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5684950 | Dare et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5699521 | Iizuka et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5715394 | Jabs | Feb 1998 | A |
5717604 | Wiggins et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5729546 | Gupta et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5734654 | Shirai et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5740176 | Gupta et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5745556 | Ronen | Apr 1998 | A |
5764736 | Shachar et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5764756 | Onweller | Jun 1998 | A |
5768521 | Dedrick | Jun 1998 | A |
5778182 | Cathey et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5793763 | Mayes et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799017 | Gupta et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5812529 | Czarnik et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5835720 | Nelson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835725 | Chiang et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835727 | Wong et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838682 | Dekelbaum et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838683 | Corley et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838994 | Valizadeh | Nov 1998 | A |
5845070 | Ikudome | Dec 1998 | A |
5852812 | Reeder | Dec 1998 | A |
5854901 | Cole et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5867495 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5889774 | Mirashrafi et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5898780 | Liu et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5905736 | Ronen et al. | May 1999 | A |
5913037 | Spofford et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5918016 | Brewer et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5922051 | Sidey | Jul 1999 | A |
5926458 | Yin | Jul 1999 | A |
5944824 | He | Aug 1999 | A |
5968116 | Day, II et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970477 | Roden | Oct 1999 | A |
5974453 | Andersen et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5991828 | Horie et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6009103 | Woundy | Dec 1999 | A |
6011910 | Chau et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018619 | Allard et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6021429 | Danknick | Feb 2000 | A |
6026087 | Mirashrafi et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6026441 | Ronen | Feb 2000 | A |
6035281 | Crosskey et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052725 | McCann et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055236 | Nessett et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6091951 | Sturniolo et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092196 | Reiche | Jul 2000 | A |
6119160 | Zhang et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6141687 | Blair | Oct 2000 | A |
6178455 | Schutte et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6249813 | Campion et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6266523 | Cook et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6282575 | Lin et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6295283 | Falk | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6324577 | Hirai | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6381650 | Peacock | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6496511 | Wang et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513066 | Hutton et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6564216 | Waters | May 2003 | B2 |
6577628 | Hejza | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6587455 | Ray et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6618757 | Babbitt et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6697360 | Gai et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6763012 | Lord et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6795709 | Agrawal et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6799204 | Baba et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6880000 | Tominaga et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6988148 | Sheth | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7197549 | Salama et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7254630 | Daude et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7302484 | Stapp et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7367046 | Sukiman et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7587493 | Sheth | Sep 2009 | B1 |
20010025312 | Obata | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010044893 | Skemer | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020013847 | Fisher et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020138614 | Hall | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020155827 | Agrawal et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156914 | Lo et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030105976 | Copeland, III | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115345 | Chien et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040128144 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
9713352 | Apr 1997 | WO |
9713382 | Apr 1997 | WO |
9953408 | Oct 1999 | WO |
WO 0117199 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0117199 | Mar 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09874520 | Jun 2001 | US |
Child | 09952259 | US |