The invention relates to computer networks and, more particularly, to techniques for routing packets within computer networks.
A computer network is a collection of interconnected computing devices that 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. The packets 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 within a network, 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 data packet, the router examines header information within the packet to identify the destination for the packet. Based on the header information, the router accesses the routing information, selects an appropriate route for the packet and forwards the packet accordingly.
A variety of routers exist within the Internet. Network Service Providers (NSPs), for example, maintain “edge routers” to provide Internet access to the end-users. The edge routers of the NSPs often communicate network traffic to high-speed “core routers,” which may be generally viewed as forming the backbone of the Internet. These core routers often include substantially more processing resources than the edge routers, and are designed to handle high volumes of network traffic.
In addition, the NSPs often maintain “service routers” dedicated to providing services to the end-users. Examples of services that the NSP may provide include Voice over IP (VOIP), access for Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or frame relay communications, Internet protocol (IP) data services, and multimedia services, such as video streaming. NSPs often desire to isolate these services from one another for purposes of reliability. As a result, an NSP may implement each type of service with one or more dedicated service routers.
As Internet-based services become more widely adopted, this use of dedicated service routers leads to increased capital expenditures. Moreover, complexities associated with maintenance and management of separate service routers, edge routers, and core routers can be significant.
In general, the invention is directed to techniques by which one or more logical routers are implemented within a single physical routing device. These logical routers, as referred to herein, are logically isolated in the sense that they achieve operational and organizational isolation within the routing device without requiring the use of additional or redundant hardware, e.g., additional hardware-based routing controllers. For example, the logical routers may be implemented as isolated software processes having corresponding, i.e., unique, routing tables.
Nevertheless, economies may be achieved by the sharing of certain functions within the routing device. For example, the logically isolated routers may utilize a shared forwarding plane, e.g., a shared forwarding engine and a set of shared interface cards. As another example, the logical routers may share management functions, such as a configuration interface and general configuration data. In this manner, the logical routers achieve a degree of isolation, yet need not necessarily be implemented as fully-duplicative routers having little or no shared functions.
In one embodiment, a routing device comprises a computing platform, and a plurality of software process executing within the computing platform, wherein the software processes operate as logical routers.
In another embodiment, a device comprises a first logical router operating as an access router to provide network access to a set of users, and a second logical router operating as a service router to provide a network service to the end users. The first logical router and the second logical router operate as logically isolated routers within the device.
In another embodiment, a device comprises a first logical router operating as an access router to provide network access to a set of users, and a second logical router operating as a core router to route network traffic from the first logical router to a network backbone. The first logical router and the second logical router operate as logically isolated routers within the device.
In another embodiment, a device comprises a first logical router operating as router within a first one of a pair of redundant networks; and a second logical router operating as a router within a second one of the pair of redundant networks. The first logical router and the second logical router operate as logically isolated routers within the routing device.
In one embodiment, a method comprises executing a plurality of software processes within a routing device, wherein each software process operates as an independent logical router; and forwarding network packets with the logical routers.
In another embodiment, the invention is directed to a computer-readable medium containing instructions. The instructions cause a programmable processor to execute a plurality of software processes within a routing device, wherein each of the software processes operates as an independent logical router, associate each of the logical routers with a respective network, and maintain separate routing tables for the logical routers in accordance with topologies of the respective networks of the logical routers.
The techniques may achieve one or more advantages. For example, implementation of logically isolated routers within a single physical routing device may allow Network Service Providers (NSPs) to collapse portions of network infrastructure into the single routing device that would otherwise require multiple routers. A NSP may, for example, implement multiple service routers as isolated logical routers within the single routing device. As another example, a NSP may implement one or more service routers and one or more edge routers as isolated logical routers within the single routing device. As yet another example, a NSP may implement a combination of edge routers and core routers within the single routing device.
The consolidation of otherwise physically separate routers into a single routing device may lead to increased reliability and service availability. For example, the techniques allow a high-end routing device to implement a core router, and additionally implement one or more logically isolated edge routers or service routers. As a result, the low-end, and possibly less reliable, hardware typically associated with service and edge routers may be eliminated and replaced by logically isolated routers that make use of the resources of the high-end routing device. As another example, co-located routers that are used to provide redundancy, e.g., a primary and a backup router, may be implemented as logical routers within a single routing device without requiring separate hardware for the primary router and the backup router.
The techniques described herein may also lead to increased manageability. The consolidation of otherwise physically separate routers into a single routing device reduces the number of overall routers that need to be separately managed.
The details of one or more embodiments of the invention are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.
In the exemplary embodiment of
Logical edge router 10 communicates network traffic to and from core router 8. In this manner, logical edge router 10 and core router 8 provide connectivity to public network 16, which may be a portion of the Internet. Logical service routers 12A and 12B communicate network traffic to and from logical edge router 10, and provide network services to end users 14. Examples of services that logical service routers 12A and 12B may provide include, for example, Voice over IP (VOIP), access for Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or frame relay communications, Internet protocol (IP) data services, and multimedia distribution services, such as video streaming. End users 14 access logical service routers 12A and 12B with computing devices or other network-enabled devices, such as cable modems, digital subscriber line (DSL) modems, digital televisions, or other devices.
As described in herein, routing device 4 implements logical edge router 10 and logical service routers 12A and 12B as logically isolated routers without requiring the use of additional or otherwise redundant hardware, e.g., additional hardware-based routing controllers. For example, logical edge router 10 and logical service routers 12A-12B may be implemented as isolated software processes having corresponding, i.e., unique, routing tables. Consequently, in the example of
As illustrated in further detail below, logical edge router 10 and logical service routers 12A and 12B may utilize a shared forwarding plane, e.g., a shared forwarding engine and a set of shared interface cards with which to receive and forward packets via network links 7. In addition, routing device 4 may include a configuration interface for management of logical edge router 10 and logical service routers 12A and 12B. In this manner, logical edge router 10 and logical service routers 12A and 12B provide a degree of isolation, yet need not necessarily be implemented as fully-duplicative routers having little or no sharing of functions.
Routing engine 58 provides an operating environment for one or more logical router processes (LRPs) 60A-60N. LRPs 60A-60N (“LRPs 60”) operate as independent routers that are operationally and organizationally isolated within routing device 50. Each of LRPs 60 is primarily responsible for maintaining one or more corresponding routing tables 62A-62N based on routes learned from other routers. More specifically, LRPs 60 support routing protocols by which LRPs 60 exchange routing information with other routers. The other routers may be external to routing device 50. In addition, LRPs 60 view each other as separate routers, and interact with each other in a manner similar to their interaction with external routers. For example, as described in further detail below, LRPs 60 may be configured to forward packets to each other as separate routers. Similarly, LRPs 60 may exchange routing information with each other in a manner similar to physically separate routers. Exemplary routing interior and exterior routing protocols that may be supported by LRPs 60 include the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (ISIS) protocol, the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol, and the Routing Information Protocol (RIP).
Routing device 50 further includes interface cards 66A-66P (“IFCs 66”) that receive and send packet flows via network links 78A-78P (“network links 78”) and 80A-80P (“network links 80”), respectively. IFCs 66 are typically coupled to network links 78, 80 via a number of interface ports (not shown), and forward and receive packets and control information to and from forwarding engine 56 via a respective one of interfaces 82A-82P (“interfaces 82”). Routing device 50 may include a chassis (not shown) having a number of slots for receiving a set of cards, including IFCs 66. Each card may be inserted into a corresponding slot of the chassis for electrically coupling the card to control unit 52 via a bus, backplane, switch fabric or other electrical communication mechanism.
Each of LRPs 60 perform route resolution to independently generate one or more corresponding forwarding tables 64A-64N (“forwarding tables 64”) in accordance with their respective routing tables 62A-62N (“routing tables 62”). Each of forwarding tables 64 associate destination information, such as IP address prefixes, with specific forwarding next hops (FNHs) and corresponding interface IFCs 66. Forwarding tables 64 may, therefore, be thought of as based on the information contained within the respective routing tables 62. In response to topology changes, one or more of LRPs 60 may update respective tables of routing tables 62, and generates corresponding forwarding tables 64 based on the affected routes.
Each of LRPs 60 communicates its respective forwarding tables 64 to forwarding engine 56 via data communication channel 65 for use in forwarding network packets. Although described for exemplary purposes in reference to tables, LRPs 60 and forwarding engine 56 may maintain routing tables 62 and forwarding tables 64 in the form of one or more tables, databases, link lists, radix trees, databases, flat files, combinations thereof, or any other data structures.
In operation, routing device 50 receives inbound packets from network links 78, determines destinations for the received packets, and outputs the packets on network links 80 based on the destination information within the packets. More specifically, upon receiving an inbound packet via one of inbound links 78, a respective one of IFCs 66 relays the packet to forwarding engine 56. In response, forwarding engine 56 reads data from the packet, referred to as the “key,” that may include, for example, a network destination for the packet. The key may, for example, also contain a routing prefix for another router within the network. Based on the key, forwarding engine 56 directs the inbound packet to an appropriate one or more of IFCs 66 for transmission in accordance with forwarding tables 64.
In one embodiment, routing engine 58 comprises one or more programmable processors executing an operating system (not shown). The operating system may provide a multi-tasking operating environment for execution of LRPs 60 as independent software processes. For example, as independent software processes, the operating system may maintain respective process state for each of LRPs 60, such as a program data and stack, program counter, stack pointer, register values, address space, and other process information. As a result, each of LRPs 60 is logically isolated from each other, and software bugs and other problems that may arise in one of the LRPs may not negatively impact the other LRPs. Other software processes (not shown) may be implemented, such as a device configuration process that controls the physical configuration of router 50, and a user interface (UI) process that provides an interface by which a remote system administrator or script can control and configure routing device 50. An example of such an operating system is FreeBSD, which is an advanced UNIX operating system that is compatible with a number of programmable processors, including processors from INTEL CORPORATION™.
LRPs 60 and the other software processes may be stored as executable instructions fetched from one or more computer-readable media. Examples of such media include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), non-volatile random access memory (NVRAM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, and the like. Forwarding engine 56 may comprise one or more dedicated processors, discrete hardware circuitry, firmware, and/or specialized hardware. Data communication channel 65 may be a high-speed network connection, bus, switch fabric, shared-memory or other data communication mechanism.
Routing engine 58 further includes a command line interface (CLI) 95 for processing user or script-driven commands. Remote clients 94 may, for example, interact with CLI 95 to provide configuration commands and data to routing engine 58, as well as receive status information from the routing engine. Management process 92 processes the configuration commands and data received from CLI 95, and stores the configuration commands and data in configuration database (CONFIG DB) 96. Configuration database 96 may take the form of a text file, such as an ASCII file, one or more databases, tables, data structures, or the like. Remote clients 94 may comprise human system administrators or software agents that provide configuration scripts. Moreover, although illustrated for exemplary purposes with reference to remote clients 94, a user may directly interact with CLI 95, e.g., via a keyboard or other input device directly coupled to routing device 50.
Management process 92 directs the received configuration commands and data to logical router command multiplexer (LRCMUX) 90, e.g., a software multiplexer, which distributes the configuration commands and data to the appropriate LRPs 60 based on a login “context” associated with each of remote clients 94. In other words, the login context for each of remote clients 94 determines the scope of access afforded the remote client. For example, any of clients 94 associated with a “master login” context has system-wide access to the configuration and operation of the physical routing device 50. Consequently, clients 94 associated with a master login context are able to configure the physical components of routing device 50, and access software modules and other resources residing on the routing device. In addition, clients 94 associated with the master login may configure a “default” logical routing process, e.g., LRP 60A, which operates within routing device 50 regardless of whether any additional LRPs are configured to operate.
In contrast, a “logical router” (LR) login context allows clients 94 limited access to configure particular LRPs 60. In this manner, remote clients 94 associated with an LR login context may independently configure respective ones of LRPs 60. For example, a remote client 94 associated with an LR login context may independently adjust parameters for supported network protocols and modify the routing information maintained by a respective one of LRPs 60. However, that remote client is prevented from accessing and configuring other LRPs 60, or other processes or resources within routing device 50.
To maintain and enforce these requirements, LRCMUX 90 associates each CLI session presented by CLI 95 with a respective one of LRPs 60. Upon receiving a configuration command from management process 92, LRCMUX 90 directs the command to the appropriate one of LRPs 60, i.e., the one of LRPs 60 that is associated with the CLI session from which the command was received. LRCMUX 90 may, for example, maintain respective communication sockets for each of LRPs 60 for communicating the commands to the appropriate one of the LRPs.
In one embodiment, CLI 95 and management process 92 support a command syntax that allows those clients 94 associated with a master login context to designate which of LRPs 60 their current CLI sessions are to be bound. In particular, the set cli command may be used in accordance with the following syntax:
In one embodiment, management process 92 supports a text-based configuration syntax for defining LRPs 60 as follow:
In the above exemplary syntax, each of the routing instances, routing options, protocols, policy-options and interfaces associated with the logical router can be configured with a corresponding stanza of text. The interface stanza is used to associate a logical interface with the logical router being defined. More specifically, one or more remote clients 94 associated with a master login context may create a number of logical interfaces associated with the physical interfaces presented by IFCs 66 (
Management process 92 may verify compliance with this requirement of a one-to-one relationship between LRPs 60 and logical interfaces when the configuration data is committed, i.e., presented via remote clients 94 for acceptance as operational configuration data. More specifically, management process 92 may process commit and rollback commands so that the commands are exclusive to the particular LR contexts associated with remote clients 94. In general, commit commands are used to indicate to management process 92 that candidate configuration data is to be processed and used as operational data, while rollback commands are used to indicate that candidate configuration data is to be discarded. When such a command is received, management process 92 and LRCMUX 90 limit the affect of the commands to the portions of configuration database 96 corresponding to the one of LRPs 60 that is associated with the CLI session from which the command was received. In other words, in response to a commit command received from a CLI session, management process 92 commits only those portions of candidate configuration for the one of LRPs 60 associated with that CLI session. Management process 92 handles rollback commands in similar fashion.
In one embodiment, management process 92 supports a command syntax in which a keyword contains-node may be used within a logical router stanza to indicate that a corresponding configuration object is copied, or aliased, from another location within the configuration data. For example, the contains-node keyword may be used to easily replicate the entire routing-instance and protocols hierarchies within the definition of a logical router as follows:
More specifically, tunnel card 102 is a shared resource that may be used by any of LRPs 60, and may be viewed by the LRPs as a destination within a network. In other words, LRPs 60 may configure their respective forwarding tables 64A-64N to forward packets to tunnel card 102 via interface 104 as if tunnel card 102 was an external network destination. Upon receipt of packets from forwarding engine 56, tunnel card 102 redirects the packets to forwarding engine 56 for additional forwarding. In this manner, LRPs 60 may forward packets to each other and maintain packet isolation as if they were on separate networks.
LRP 60A, for example, may configure forwarding tables 64A to designate tunnel card 102 as a next hop for packets destined to LRP 60N. Upon receiving a packet via a logical interface associated with forwarding table 64A, tunnel card 102 provides a data path for returning the packet to forwarding engine 56. For example, tunnel card 102 may return the packet to forwarding engine 56 via a logical interface associated with forwarding table 64N. Forwarding engine 56 then forwards the packet in accordance to forwarding table 64, e.g., to an external router via one of IFCs 66 or to another one of LRPs 60 via tunnel card 102. In this manner, tunnel card 102 acts as a destination, i.e., next hop, to which packets may be directed by LRPs 60 for forwarding to other LRPs 60.
In one embodiment, the command syntax presented by management interface 92 (
In the above example, two logical routers lr1 and lr2 are defined. For each logical router a respective logical tunnel interface (“lt”) is defined as lt-4/2/0. This logical tunnel interface is bound to logical interfaces unit 1 and unit 0, which are identified as peer logical interfaces. This allows the LRPs 60 to which the logical interfaces are assigned, i.e., logical routers lr1 and lr2 in this example, to exchange packets via tunnel card 102 and forwarding engine 56 as if they were physically separate routers.
In addition to providing a data path for forwarding packets between LRPs 60, tunnel card 102 may provide shared resources for processing the packets. For example, tunnel card 102 may provide encryption/decryption and encapsulation/de-capsulation services for LRPs 60. Consequently, LRPs 60 may utilize tunnel card 102 to form logical network tunnels between logical tunnel interfaces associated with pairs of the LRPs.
Although described for exemplary purposes in reference to tunnel card 102, other mechanisms may be implemented for LRPs 60 to forward packets to each other. For example, forwarding engine 56 may be configured to automatically apply a “double-lookup” to forward packets between LRPs 60, thereby avoiding the use of tunnel card 102. Upon receiving a packet associated with one of LRPs 60, forwarding engine 56 applies a first lookup in accordance with the respective tables of forwarding tables 64 to determine a destination for the packet. If the destination is another one of LRPs 60, forwarding engine 56 may automatically apply a second lookup in accordance with the tables associated with the destination LRP to determine the subsequent destination. This process may be repeated a plurality of times in the event a packet is forwarded through two or more LRPs 60.
Based on the configuration data, the logical routers are configured in accordance with the specified routing protocols, interfaces, policies, routing instances (114). Once spawned, the logical routers independently perform route resolution to generate their respective forwarding tables (116), and operate as logically isolated routers (118).
Various embodiments of the invention have been described. These and other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/753,026 filed Jan. 6, 2004, the entire contents of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3962681 | Requa et al. | Jun 1976 | A |
4032899 | Jenny et al. | Jun 1977 | A |
4600319 | Everett, Jr. | Jul 1986 | A |
5375216 | Moyer et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5408539 | Finlay et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5490252 | Macera et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5509123 | Dobbins et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5530958 | Agarwal et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5568471 | Hershey et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
6011795 | Varghese et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018765 | Durana et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6148335 | Haggard et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148765 | Lilleland et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6182146 | Graham-Cumming, Jr. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6226748 | Bots et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6321338 | Porras et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6392996 | Hjalmtysson | May 2002 | B1 |
6499088 | Wexler et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6501752 | Kung et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6563796 | Saito | May 2003 | B1 |
6584548 | Bourne et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6590898 | Uzun | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6594268 | Aukia et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6598034 | Kloth | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6651098 | Carroll et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6735201 | Mahajan et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6751663 | Farrell et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6807523 | Wensink | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6826713 | Beesley et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6870817 | Dolinar et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6889181 | Kerr et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6910148 | Ho | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6970943 | Subramanian et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6973066 | Gutowski | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6975628 | Johnson et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6983294 | Jones et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6985956 | Luke et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7031304 | Aberg et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7055174 | Cope et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7058974 | Maher, III et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7099669 | Sheffield | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7114008 | Jungck et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117241 | Bloch | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120931 | Cheriton | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7139242 | Bays | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7185103 | Jain | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7185368 | Copeland, III | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7203740 | Putzolo et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7231459 | Saraph et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7251215 | Turner et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7254114 | Turner et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7263091 | Woo et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7292573 | LaVigne et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7313100 | Turner et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7318179 | Fernandes | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7362763 | Wybenga et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7369557 | Sinha | May 2008 | B1 |
7376125 | Hussain et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7383541 | Banks et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7386108 | Zave et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7406030 | Rijsman | Jul 2008 | B1 |
7420929 | Mackie | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7433966 | Charny et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7443805 | Bynum | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7492713 | Turner et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7496650 | Previdi et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7496955 | Akundi et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7561569 | Thiede | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7580356 | Mishra et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7606241 | Raghunathan et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7630358 | Lakhani et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7633944 | Chang et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7660265 | Kreuk et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7664855 | Freed et al. | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7738396 | Turner et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7747737 | Apte et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7802000 | Huang et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7809827 | Apte et al. | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7856014 | Kreuk | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7869352 | Turner et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
8031715 | Change et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8037175 | Apte et al. | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8089895 | Mackie | Jan 2012 | B1 |
8340090 | Bettink et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8369345 | Raghunathan et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
9032095 | Traina et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
20020095492 | Kaashoek et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020126621 | Johnson et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020141343 | Bays et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020163932 | Fischer et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030005145 | Bullard | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030051048 | Watson et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030097557 | Tarquini et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030105851 | Metzger et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030106067 | Hoskins et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030120769 | McCollom et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030145232 | Poletto et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030165144 | Wang | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030169747 | Wang | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030214913 | Kan et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030223361 | Hussain et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030228147 | Brahim | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040037279 | Zelig et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040059831 | Chu | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040066782 | Nassar | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040153573 | Kim et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040165581 | Oogushi | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186701 | Aubin et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040260834 | Lindholm et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040264465 | Dunk | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050027782 | Jalan et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050041665 | Weyman et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050074009 | Kanetake et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050088965 | Atlas et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050160289 | Shay | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050169281 | Ko et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050190719 | Lee et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050257256 | Supnik et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265308 | Barbir et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060062206 | Krishnaswamy | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060089994 | Hayes | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060090008 | Guichard et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060153067 | Vasseur et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168274 | Aloni et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060182122 | Davie et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060203820 | Coluccio | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060268682 | Vasseur | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060268877 | Gollamudi | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070016702 | Pione et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070025241 | Nadeau et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070058558 | Cheung et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070076658 | Park et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083672 | Shima et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070086448 | Hu | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070091794 | Filsfils et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070115899 | Ovadia | May 2007 | A1 |
20070121812 | Strange et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070127382 | Hussain et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070140235 | Aysan et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070162783 | Talaugon et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070174685 | Banks et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070291764 | Wu | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080019383 | Wainwright et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080043764 | Ishizaki et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080049664 | Austin et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080069100 | Weyman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080080508 | Das et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080092229 | Khanna et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080101350 | Kreuk et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080148386 | Kreuk et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080151882 | Sanjay et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080159277 | Vobbilisetty et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080170578 | Ould-Brahim | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080205271 | Aissaoui et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080205395 | Boddapati et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080225852 | Raszuk et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080285466 | Salam et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080304476 | Pirbhai et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080310433 | Retana et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090031041 | Clemmensen | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090041038 | Martini et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090092137 | Haigh et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090129385 | Wray et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
20090175280 | Berechva et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090185506 | Watson et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20100046531 | Louati et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100061380 | Barach et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100202295 | Smith et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100214913 | Kompella | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100272110 | Allan et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100309907 | Proulx et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110075664 | Lambeth et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110119748 | Edwards et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
9836532 | Aug 1998 | WO |
02084920 | Oct 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“About Endace,” accessed on Apr. 18, 2013, www.endace.com/, 2002, 1 pp. |
“Cisco IOS NetFlow,” accessed on Apr. 18, 2013, www.cisco.com/warn/public/732/Tech/nmg/netflow/index.shtml, 2002, 1 pp. |
“Sample TCP/IP Packet,” accessed on Apr. 4, 2005, www.passwall.com, Version 0.0.0@ 03:55/08.07.2000, Copyright 2002, 6 pp. |
“TCP Packet Field Descriptions, updated Jul. 8, 2003,” www.ipanalyser.co.uk, Analyser Sales Ltd., Copyright 2003, 2 pp. |
“The CAIDA Web Site,” accessed on Mar. 4, 2013, www.caida.org/, 2002, 1 pg. |
“Well-Known TCP Port Number,” accessed on Mar. 3, 2014, www.webopedia.com, 2004, 3 pp. |
D.J. Bernstein, “SYN Cookies,” http://cr.yp.to/syncookies.html, Oct. 2003, 3 pp. |
Dini, P. et al., “Performance Evaluation for Distributed System Components,” Proceedings of IEEE Second International Workshop on Systems Management, Jun. 1996, pp. 20-29. |
Weaver, A.C. et al., “A Real-Time Monitor for Token Ring Networks,” Military Communications Conference, 1989, MILCOM '89, Oct. 1989, vol. 3, pp. 794-798. |
Integrated Services Adapter, 2000, Cisco Systems, Data Sheet, accessed on Apr. 18, 2013, http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ifaa/svaa/iasvaa/prodlit/ism2—ds.pdf, 6 pp. |
Jonathan Lemon, accessed on Mar. 4, 2013, “Resisting SYN Flood DoS Attacks with a SYN Cache,” http://people.freebsd.org/˜jlemon/papers/syncache.pdf, 9 pp. |
Juniper Networks, Inc., accessed on Mar. 4, 2013, “Combating Bots and Mitigating DDos Attacks,” Juniper Networks, Inc. 2008, http://www.juniper.net/solutions /literature /solutionbriefs/351198.pdf, 8 pp. |
Mark Gibbs, “A Guide to Original SYN,” www.nwfusion.com, Network World, Nov. 2000, 4 pp. |
Michael Egan, “Decomposition of a TCP Packet,” www.passwall.com, Aug. 7, 2000, 3 pp. |
PCI Technology Overview, Feb. 2003, www.cs.unc.edu/Research /stc/FAQs/pcioverview.pdf, 22 pp. |
Stuart Staniford, et al., accessed on Mar. 4, 2013, “Practical Automated Detection of Stealthy Portscans,” http://downloads.securityfocus.com/library/spice-ccs2000.pdf, 16 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/897,530, by Manoj Apte, filed Oct. 4, 2010. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/750,926, by Sriram Raghunathan et al., filed Jan. 25, 2013. |
Prosecution History from U.S. Appl. No. 10/753,026, dated from Oct. 31, 2008 through Apr. 9, 2015, 201 pp. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10753026 | Jan 2004 | US |
Child | 14705771 | US |