Patent Grant
11336574
Network nodes are capable of receiving and forwarding packets. Network nodes may take form in one or more routers, one or more bridges, one or more switches, one or more servers, or any other suitable communications processing device. A packet is a formatted unit of data that typically contains control information and payload data. Control information may include, for example: source and destination IP addresses, error detection codes like checksums, sequencing information, and the like. Control information is typically found in packet headers and trailers, and payload data is typically found in between the headers and trailers.
Packet forwarding involves decision processes that, while simple in concept, can be complex. Since packet forwarding decisions are handled by nodes, the total time required to perform packet forwarding decision processes can become a major limiting factor in overall network performance. Different types of networks can employ different packet forwarding mechanisms. Ensuring interoperability between the types of networks and packet forwarding mechanisms enables advantages from one type of packet forward mechanism to be leveraged in multiple network types.
A more complete understanding of the present disclosure may be acquired by referring to the following description and accompanying drawings, in which like references numbers indicate like features.
While the present disclosure is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments of the present disclosure are provided as examples in the drawings and detailed description. It should be understood that the drawings and detailed description are not intended to limit the present disclosure to the particular form disclosed. Instead, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternative falling within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure as defined by the appended claims.
Overview
A system and method are disclosed for using segment routing (SR) in native IP networks. The method involves receiving a packet. The packet is an IP packet and includes an IP header. The method also involves updating the packet. Updating the packet involves writing information, including a segment routing segment identifier, to the destination address of the packet.
Packet Forwarding Mechanisms
Internet protocol (IP) routing and multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) are distinct packet forwarding mechanisms. IP routing uses IP addresses inside packet headers to make packet forwarding decisions. In contrast, MPLS implements packet forwarding decisions based on short path identifiers called labels, which are attached to packets. Segment routing (SR) is yet another packet forwarding mechanism. SR is similar to MPLS in many regards. For example, packet forwarding decisions in SR can be based on short path identifiers called segment IDs attached to packets. However, substantial differences exist between SR and MPLS as will be more fully described below.
IP Routing
IP routing uses IP forwarding tables, which are created at nodes using routing information distributed between nodes via one or more protocols like the internal gateway protocol (IGP) and/or the border gateway protocol (BGP). In simple terms, IP forwarding tables map destination addresses to the next hops that packets take to reach their destinations. When a node receives a packet, the node can access a forwarding table using the destination address in the packet and lookup a corresponding egress interface for the next hop. The node then forwards the packet through the egress interface. The next hop that receives the packet performs its own forwarding table lookup using the same destination IP address, and so on.
MPLS and LDP
MPLS is commonly employed in provider networks. Packets enter an MPLS network via an ingress edge node, travel hop-by-hop along a label-switched path (LSP) that typically includes one or more core nodes, and exit via an egress edge node.
Packets are forwarded along an LSP based on labels and LDP forwarding tables. Labels allow for the use of very fast and simple forwarding engines in the data plane of nodes. Another benefit of MPLS is the elimination of dependence on a particular Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model data link layer technology to forward packets.
A label is a short, fixed-length, locally significant identifier that can be associated with a forwarding equivalence class (FEC). Packets associated with the same FEC should follow the same LSP through the network. LSPs can be established for a variety of purposes, such as to guarantee a certain level of performance when transmitting packets, to forward packets around network congestion, to create tunnels for network-based virtual private networks, etc. In many ways, LSPs are no different than circuit-switched paths in ATM or Frame Relay networks, except that they are not dependent on a particular Layer 2 technology.
LDP is employed in the control planes of nodes. Two nodes, called LDP peers, can bi-directionally exchange labels on a FEC-by-FEC basis. LDP can be used in a process of building and maintaining LDP forwarding tables that map labels and next hop egress interfaces. These forwarding tables can be used to forward packets through MPLS networks as more fully described below.
When a packet is received by an ingress edge node of an MPLS network, the ingress node may determine a corresponding FEC. Characteristics for determining the FEC for a packet can vary, but typically the determination is based on the packet's destination IP address. Quality of Service for the packet or other information may also be used to determine the FEC. Once determined, the ingress edge node can access a table to select a label that is mapped to the FEC. The table may also map a next hop egress interface to the FEC. Before the ingress edge node forwards the packet to the next hop via, the ingress node attaches the label.
When a node receives a packet with an attached label (i.e., the incoming label), the node accesses an LDP forwarding table to read a next hop egress interface and another label (i.e., an outgoing label), both which are mapped to the incoming label. Before the packet is forwarded via the egress interface, the node swaps the incoming label with the outgoing label. The next hop receives the packet with label and may perform the same process. This process is often called hop-by-hop forwarding along a non-explicit path. The penultimate node in the LSP may pop or remove the incoming label before forwarding the packet to an egress edge node in the network, which in turn may forward the packet towards its destination using the packet's destination address and an IP forwarding table.
Segment Routing
Segment routing (SR) is a mechanism in which nodes forward packets using SR forwarding tables and segment IDs. Like MPLS, SR enables very fast and simple forwarding engines in the data plane of nodes. SR is not dependent on a particular Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model data link layer technology to forward packets.
SR nodes (i.e., nodes employing SR) make packet forwarding decisions based on segment IDs as opposed to labels, and as a result SR nodes need not employ LDP in their control planes. Unless otherwise indicated, the SR nodes described below lack LDP in the control plane.
Packets can enter an SR enabled network (i.e., a network of nodes that are SR enabled) via an ingress edge node, travel hop-by-hop along a segment path (SP) that includes one or more core nodes, and exit the network via an egress edge node. Like labels, segment IDs are short (relative to the length of an IP address or a FEC), fixed-length identifiers. Segment IDs may correspond to topological segments of a network, services provided by network nodes, etc. Topological segments represent one-hop or multi-hop paths to SR nodes. Topological segments act as sub-paths that can be combined to form an SP. Stacks of segment IDs can represent SPs, and SPs can be associated with FECs as will be more fully described below.
There are several types of segment IDs including nodal segment IDs, adjacency segment IDs, area segment IDs, service segment IDs, etc. Nodal segment IDs are typically assigned to nodes such that no two SR nodes belonging to a network domain are assigned the same nodal segment ID. Nodal segment IDs can be mapped to unique SR node identifiers such as node loopback IP addresses (hereinafter node loopbacks). In one embodiment, all assigned nodal segment IDs are selected from a predefined ID range (e.g., [32, 5000]). A nodal segment ID corresponds to a one-hop or a multi-hop, shortest path (SPT) to an SR node assigned the nodal segment ID, as will be more fully described below.
An adjacency segment ID represents a direct link between adjacent SR nodes in a network. Links can be uniquely identified. For purposes of explanation only, this disclosure will identify a link using the loopbacks of nodes between which the link is positioned. To illustrate, for a link between two nodes identified by node loopback X and node loopback Y, the link will be identified herein as link XY. Because loopbacks are unique, link IDs are unique. Link IDs should not be confused with adjacency segment IDs; adjacency segment IDs may not be unique within a network. This disclosure will presume that only one link exists between nodes in a network, it being understood the present disclosure should not be limited thereto.
Each SR node can assign a distinct adjacency segment ID for each of the node's links. Adjacency segment IDs are locally significant; separate SR nodes may assign the same adjacency segment ID, but that adjacency segment ID represents distinct links. In one embodiment, adjacency segment IDs are selected from a predefined range that is outside the predefined range for nodal segment IDs.
SR nodes can advertise routing information including nodal segment IDs bound to loopbacks, adjacency segment IDs mapped to link IDs, etc., using protocols such as IGP and/or BGP with SR extension. Nodes can use the routing information they receive to create or update SR forwarding tables. To illustrate, SR nodes may use the routing information they receive and protocols such as open shortest path first (OSPF) with SR extension in order to create topology maps of the network, which in turn can be used to identify next hop egress interfaces of shortest paths (SPTs) to respective node loopbacks. The identified SPT or next hop egress interfaces are then mapped to respective nodal segment IDs in an SR forwarding table. Nodes can also map their adjacency segment IDs to egress interfaces for respective links in SR forwarding tables. Because adjacency segment IDs are locally significant, however, adjacency segment IDs should only be mapped in SR forwarding tables of the nodes that advertise the adjacency segment IDs. In other words, an SR node that advertises an adjacency segment ID should be the only node in the network area that has an SR forwarding table that maps the adjacency segment ID to an egress interface.
As noted above, SR enables segment paths (SPs), which can be used for transporting packets through a network. SPs can be associated with FECs, and can be established for a variety of purposes. Packets associated with the same FEC normally traverse the same SP towards their destination. Nodes in SPs make forwarding decisions based on segment IDs, not based on the contents (e.g., destination IP addresses) of packets. As such, packet forwarding in SPs is not dependent on a particular Layer 2 technology.
Edge nodes and/or other devices (e.g., a centralized control plane server) of an SR network use routing information (nodal segment IDs bound to loopbacks, adjacency segment IDs mapped to link IDs, etc.) they receive in link advertisements to create ordered lists of segment IDs (i.e., segment ID stacks). Segment ID stacks correspond to respective SPs. Individual segment IDs in a segment ID stack may correspond to respective segments or sub paths of a corresponding SP.
When an SR ingress edge node receives a packet, the node or a centralized control plane server in data communication with the node, can select an SP for the packet based on information contained in the packet. In one embodiment, a FEC may be calculated for the packet using the packet's destination address. The FEC is then used to select a segment ID stack mapped thereto. The ingress edge node can attach the selected segment ID stack to the packet via an SR header. The packet with the attached segment ID stack is forwarded along and can traverse the segments of the SP in an order that corresponds to the list order of the segment IDs in the segment ID stack. A forwarding engine operating in the data plane of each SR node can use the top segment ID within the segment ID stack to lookup the egress for the next hop. As the packet and attached segment ID stack are forwarded along the SP in a hop-by-hop fashion, segment IDs can be popped off the top of the segment ID stack. In another embodiment, the attached stack of segment IDs remains unchanged as the packet is forwarded along the SP. In this embodiment, a pointer, or some other information is used to identify an active segment ID in the segment ID stack. The pointer can be advanced as the packet is forwarded along the SP. In contrast to MPLS, however, segment IDs are typically not swapped as the packet and attached segment ID stack are forwarded along the SP.
Segment Routing in IPv6 Networks
As discussed above, SR has numerous advantageous properties. However, some networks do not inherently provide SR functionality. For example, a native IPv6 network uses IPv6-compatible protocols in the control plane and data plane. This means that the control protocols which nodes use to exchange forwarding information in an IP network do not explicitly support SR. Likewise, the data plane in some IPv6 networks, if not modified, does not support SR forwarding operations. And even in cases where a network does support SR, there may be portions of the network that do not use SR. For example, home networks, where packets are generated at hosts and sent to servers, generally do not use SR between the host that generates the packets and servers that digest the packets. At another end of the network, e.g., a datacenter, SR is also not used in some instances. In these network edge examples, IP is often used to forward packets, and SR is often not used.
IPv6 is a version of IP routing that improves upon previous versions. For example, IPv4 uses 32-bit addresses. IPv6, on the other hand, uses 128-bit addresses, which significantly increases the number of addresses that can be assigned to network devices. Another feature provided by IPv6 is the capability to define extension headers. Extension headers are optional headers used to carry additional information in a packet header. Extension headers are placed in the packet between the fixed IPv6 header and an upper-layer protocol header (e.g., a TCP header).
To use SR in an IP network, such as the network shown in
Each of the SR nodes 106-112 have interfaces that are identified as shown. For example, node 108 has two interfaces designated 1-2, respectively. Each of the nodes 106-112 is assigned a unique loopback. Loopbacks B-E are assigned to nodes 106-112, respectively. These loopbacks are unique in the network and can be used for several purposes, such as calculating the topology of network 100, which in turn can be used to create SPs and/or to identify SPTs and thus next hop egress interfaces, for SR forwarding tables. Nodes 106-112 can also assign locally significant adjacency-segment IDs. For example, node 108 can assign adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9002 to links CB and CD, respectively.
Each of SR nodes 106-112 can advertise routing information to the other nodes in network 100 using IGP with SR extension. For example, node 108 can generate and send one or more link state advertisements that include adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9002 bound to link IDs CB and CD, respectively, and nodal-segment ID 66 bound to loopback C. One of ordinary skill understands that link state advertisements may contain additional information. Using the advertisements they receive, the control planes of nodes 106-112 can generate respective SR forwarding tables for use in the data planes. For example, node 108 can generate example SR forwarding table that maps adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9002 to node interface IDs 1-2, respectively, and nodal-segment IDs such as 65 and 67 to node 108 interfaces 1 and 2, respectively, which are the SPT next hop egress interfaces determined by node 108 for loopbacks B and D, respectively.
Node 106 is an ingress edge node for the SR domain. Node 106 is configured to receive packets that are not SR packets, e.g., packets that do not contain SR information, and modify the packets such that the packets can be forwarded by SR nodes using SR. In one embodiment, this involves adding a SR extension header to a packet. Node 106 can also add a trace extension header to provide OAM functions for packets forwarded using SR. The SR extension headers are used by the SR nodes to forward packets using SR and record information regarding the forwarding. That is, forwarding operations are performed by the SR nodes based upon the segment identifiers (IDs) included in the segment list. Node 112 is an egress edge router for the SR domain. Node 112 can remove SR information, such as SR extension headers, from the packet before forwarding the packet to Node 114.
IPv6 headers support multiple types and numbers of extension headers. The IPv6 header shown in
At 206, the IPv6 header includes a second extension header, specifically an SR trace header. The SR trace header is also a routing header that provides OAM functionality for the IPv6 packet. For example, the SR trace header accumulates information indicating what route the packet has taken and what operations were performed by the nodes which the packet traversed along the route.
After the SR extension headers, the IPv6 packet of
At 302, a next header field is shown. The next header includes an 8-bit value that identifies the type of header immediately following the segment routing extension header. For example, the value can indicate that another routing extension header is included in the packet following the segment routing extension header. The next header field can indicate one of a number of other types associated with the various types of extension headers supported by IPv6, such as hop-by-hop, fragment, and the like. In one embodiment, the next header value corresponds to an upper level protocol header, such as a TCP header, indicating the no subsequent extension headers are present in the packet.
The segment routing extension header also includes a header extension length field 304. The header extension length field includes an 8-bit unsigned integer. This value defines the length of the segment routing extension header in 8 byte units, not including the first 8 bytes. The maximum value of an 8-bit number is 256. The header extension length field 304 can therefore indicate that the length of the segment routing extension header (not including the first 8 bytes) is up to 2048 bytes long (256*8).
At 306, the segment routing extension header includes a routing type field. The segment routing extension header is a routing extension header. The routing type field identifies which type of routing the extension header is associated with. In the case of the segment routing extension header of
At 308, the segment routing extension header includes a field that indicates the next element in the segment list. This field functions as a pointer to identify the active segment in the segment list. As a packet is forwarded from segment to segment along its path, nodes (e.g., segment endpoints) update this field to indicate the active segment. The next element in the segment list includes 16 bits. The first 12 bits, or most significant 12 bits, provide an offset into the segment routing extension header. The location of the next segment that a packet will follow can be determined by the value encoded in the next element field. The offset is expressed in bytes. For example, if the value encoded in the next element field is 512, then an identifier for the next segment in the path that the packet should follow can be found by counting 512 bytes into the segment list 314.
Following the 12-bit offset, is a length multiplier bit. If the length multiplier bit is not set, then the three bit value in the length portion of the field refers to 4-byte multiples. If the length multiplier bit is set, then the three bits of the length field refer to 16 byte multiples. Following the multiplier bit, are three length bits. The length bits specify the length of the active segment in either 4 or 16-byte multiplies, depending on whether or not the multiplier bit is set. For example, if the three bit length value is 4, and the multiplier bit is not set, then the length of the next element is 16 bytes. In another example, if the three bit length value is 2, and the multiplier bit is set, then the length of the next element is 32 bytes.
At 310, the segment routing extension header includes a field that points to the first element in the policy list. The policy list is the list of routing information that follows the segment list in the segment routing extension header. In one embodiment, the policy list is not inspected for routing purposes. The policy list, in one embodiment, is inserted into the SR extension header at ingress to the SR domain (e.g., by an ingress node) and removed at egress from the SR domain (e.g., by an egress node). The format of the field which identifies the first element of the policy list is as follows. The first 12 bits, or the most significant 12 bits, provide an offset in the segment routing extension header that point to the location where the first element of the policy list is located. The location of the first element in the policy list can be determined by the value encoded in the first element in the policy list field. The offset is expressed in bytes. For example, if the value encoded in the first element in the policy list field is 1024, then an identifier for the first element in the policy list can be found by counting 1024 bytes into the segment routing extension header.
The next bit in the first element in the policy list field is a multiplier bit. If the length multiplier bit is not set, then the three bits of length in this field refer to 4-byte multiples. If the length multiplier bit is set, then the three bits of length refer to 16 byte multiples. The next three bits in the 16-bit first element in policy list field are length bits. The value of the three bit length field indicates the length of the first element in the policy list in either 4 byte or 16-byte multiples, depending on whether or not the multiplier bit is set. For example, if the three bit length value is 4, and the multiplier bit is not set, then the length of the first element in the policy list is 16 bytes. In another example, if the three bit length value is 2, and the multiplier bit is set, then the length of the first element in the policy list is 32 bytes.
The next field in the segment routing extension header is the first policy list mule, as shown at 312. The first policy list mule contains a copy of the mule (explained below) of the first policy list element in the policy list. Storing a copy of the first policy list element mule at this location in the segment routing extension header facilitates fast access to any flags that may have been updated as the packet traversed the segment identified by the first policy element.
The next portion of the segment routing extension header, as shown at 314, is a segment list. The segment list includes information identifying segments that the packet follows when being forwarding using segment routing, such as a list of segments. The first segment list element in segment list 314 includes information identifying the second segment in the segment path. The first segment identifier (representing the first segment in the list of segments that encodes the segment path) is not added to segment list 314 in one embodiment. Instead, a first segment identifier is extracted from the first segment element and is written to the destination address of the packet in the fixed IPv6 header. Since the first segment identifier is already included in the destination address, including the first segment identifier in the first position of the segment list would be redundant. Excluding the first segment identifier from the segment list enables effective utilization of limited resources, such as memory, by keeping important information (e.g., information that is used to forward the packet) close to the front of the segment routing extension header.
Traditional IPv6 uses fixed length addresses, e.g., of 128 bits. For example, a source address or a destination address included in an IPv6 header, such as IPv6 header 202 of
Following segment list 314 is policy list 316. As noted above, the first element of policy list 316 is the first segment list element. The second policy list element of policy list 316 identifies the ingress node of the segment routing domain. The third policy list element of policy list 316 identifies the egress node of the SR domain. Storing information identifying the ingress node and the egress node facilitates operations such as gathering statistics, filtering, deep packet inspection, and the like. For example, if an operator wants to filter nodes that entered the SR domain via a given ingress node, the operator can examine the second element of the policy list of packets to determine whether the packets entered the SR domain via the given ingress node.
At 502, the destination address includes a segment routing protocol identifier (SRPID). The SRPID is a 32-bit value that uniquely identifies the packet as an SR packet. That is, a node that examines a destination address and finds an SRPID in the first 32 bits can conclude that the packet is an SR packet and has at least one SR extension header. This improves the speed with which packets containing SR extension headers can be identified. Rather than parsing the entire packet header, a node receiving the packet can determine from the first 32 bits of the destination address whether SR extension headers are present. The SRPID can be globally unique, such as an internet assigned numbers authority (IANA) value. Alternatively, the SRPID can be private, or locally administered value that identifies packets as SR packets.
The destination address includes, at 504, a 16-bit or 32-bit autonomous system number (ASN). If the ASN is 32 bits, the first 16 bits of the ASN field are set to zero. In one embodiment, no ASN is included, and all 32 bits of the ASN field are set to zero. Next, at 506, the destination address includes a 32-bit segment ID. The 32-bit segment ID is unique within the autonomous system if an ASN is present.
The destination address also includes, at 508, 8 bits of flags. The only flag that is defined in 508 is a fast reroute flag. The fast reroute flag is set when the packet has been rerouted using fast reroute. The flag can indicate either that fast reroute was performed on the previous segment, or that fast reroute was performed at any point previously in the packet's path.
At 510, the destination address includes 24 bits of entropy information, which provide load balancing efficiency. For example, if two nodes are connected by multiple links, and packets between the nodes are distributed among the links based on destination address, the entropy bits provide a way of differentiating the destination address values so that packets traversing the same segments (which would otherwise have identical destination addresses) are sent on different links. Since the destination is actually specified by the SID in the destination address field, changing the entropy bits does not affect the path that packets travel, e.g., packets may be forwarded on different links based on a node's detecting different values in the destination address field (due to different entropy-bit values), but the node will still forward the packets to the same destination nodes.
Forwarding a packet using SR in a native IP network can cause the packet to be received by several types of nodes. For example, the node may be received at an ingress node. The ingress node receives the packet from a non-SR node, and prepares the packet to be forwarded using SR. This involves, among other things, inserting a segment list which defines the path to be followed by the packet.
After being forwarded from an ingress node, there are several types of intermediate nodes the packet may be forwarded to between the ingress node and an egress node. One type of intermediate node is a non-SR capable node. A non-SR capable node does not utilize SR, but instead forwards packets based on the node's interpretation of the destination address field of the fixed IPv6 header attached to the packets. Another type of intermediate node is an SR capable node that is a transit node within a segment. This type of node is not the endpoint of a segment. Transit nodes can inspect flags, forward the packet, and, in some cases, update an SR trace extension header. Intermediate nodes that are segment endpoints can also modify the SR extension header to control how the packet is forwarded, as well as updating flags in the SR extension header, updating the SR trace extension header, forwarding the packet, and other operations that are described below. In addition to an ingress node and intermediate nodes, a packet can be forwarded to an egress node, which prepares the packet to exit the SR domain and return to another type of forwarding mechanism, such as IPv6, by stripping some or all of the SR forwarding information from the packet's header.
At 604, the node determines whether the node is an ingress node, for example to an SR domain. In one embodiment, this is a configuration setting applied, for example, by a network operator. In such an embodiment, the node can check a flag or register value to determine whether the node is an ingress node. Alternatively, a node can determine whether the node is an ingress node depending on a destination address associated with the packet. For example, a packet arriving at a node having a specific destination address can trigger a table lookup which indicates that for the specific destination address the node is an ingress node, and an ingress process is triggered based upon the node determining that the node is an ingress node for that packet. In response to determining that the node is an ingress node for a given packet, at 606 the node executes the ingress process. The ingress process is discussed in greater with regard to
If the node is not an ingress node, the node determines, at 608, whether the node is an SR capable node. In one embodiment, this is a configuration setting applied, for example, by a network operator. In such an embodiment, the node can check a flag or register value to determine whether the node is an ingress node. An SR capable node is configured to forward packets based on segment IDs, e.g., using SR forwarding tables. Nodes that are not SR capable may be interoperable with those that are. If the node is not SR capable, the node forwards the packet using IPv6, at 610. In one embodiment, to forward a packet using IPv6, the node reads the destination address in the IPv6 header, looks up an associated egress interface in an IPv6 forwarding table, and forwards the packet to the associated egress interface. If, on the other hand, the node is an SR capable node, the node determines, at 612, whether the node is a segment end point. In one embodiment, this involves the node extracting a segment ID from the destination address of the packet and looking up a node associated with the segment ID in an SR forwarding table. If the segment ID identifies or is associated with the node, then the node is the segment end point for that segment ID. If the node is a segment endpoint, the node executes an end point process, at 614, as discussed in greater detail with regard to
If the node is not a segment end point as determined at 612, the node determines at 616 whether the node is an egress node. In one embodiment, determining whether the node is an egress node involves the node comparing the node's segment ID with a value stored in the policy list of the SR extension header, for example, the third entry of the policy list which contains, in some embodiments, information identifying the egress node for the SR domain. The node can locate the third entry in the policy list by using an offset stored in the first entry in the policy list field, as well as the length (which is included in the first policy list mule, and then calculating the locations for the second and third entries in the same fashion. In another embodiment, the node examines a flag in a segment routing extension header to determine whether the node is an egress node. In the node is not an egress node, the node executes an intra-segment transit process at 618, as discussed in greater detail with regard to
At 702, the node adds a segment list to the segment routing extension header, such as segment list 314 of
At 704, the node adds a policy list to the segment routing extension header, such as policy list 316 of
At 706, the node sets the next header field in the SR extension header. The next header field is an 8-bit selector that identifies the type of header immediately following the SR extension header. The node examines the header immediately following the SR extension header to determine a type associated with the following header. In one embodiment, the type is included in a field within the following header. In one embodiment, the node modifies a next header value in the SR extension header and also in a preceding extension header if there are additional extension headers in the IPv6 packet. For example, if a previous extension header indicated that the next header was an upper layer protocol header, insertion of the segment routing extension header causes that information to inaccurate. To correct this, the node updates the previous extension header's next header field with a value indicating that the next header is the segment routing extension header. In one embodiment, the node has access to a table indicating the types of headers and extension headers included in the IPv6 packet.
At 708, the node sets the header extension length field in the SR extension header. The header extension length is an 8-bit unsigned integer representing the length of the segment routing extension header in 8-byte units not including the first 8 bytes. In one embodiment, the node calculates the length of the segment routing extension header. For example, the node can determine the number of segment list entries and policy list entries included in the segment routing extension header, can determine the length of each of those entries, and can compute the total length of the segment routing extension header. The node then inserts the total length value into the header extension length field.
At 710, the node sets the routing type value in the segment routing extension header. In one embodiment, the node maintains or has access to a table that includes mappings between various types of routing and values representing those types of routing. The node selects the value associated with SR and inserts the value into the routing type field.
At 712, the node updates the next element field in the segment routing extension header. The next element field represents a pointer, or offset, to the next segment element, which includes a SID associated with the next segment a packet should be forwarded along. When that SID is copied to the destination address of the packet, the next element field is updated to point to the next segment list element in the segment list. In one embodiment, this involves the node computing the length of the segment list element from which the SID is being copied, and adding that value to the value currently in the next element field. In the case of the ingress router, the next element is the first element in the segment list. In this case, the value of the next element field is set to zero. When the packet reaches the destination specified in the destination address of the IPv6 header (the node associated with the first SID in the segment path), the SID associated with the first element is copied into the destination address and the next element field is updated to point to the second segment list element, and so on. The length of the current segment is calculated and added to the next element field so that the next element field specifies an offset into the segment list that corresponds to the beginning of the next segment. In one embodiment, the length is calculated by counting the bytes in the current segment. In another embodiment, the length is calculated by accessing the mule associated with the previous segment. The mule specifies a length and multiplier which the node can use to determine the offset that should be added to the next element in the segment list field. In the case of the first node, the length is available in the first policy list mule, which is included in the SR extension header and identifies the length of the first segment.
At 714, the node copies the first segment identifier to the first element of the policy list and also updates the first element in the policy list field at the top of the segment routing extension header. The segment element associated with the first segment in the path is copied to the first element in the policy list so that the first segment (which is not included in the segment list, but is instead included in the destination address in the fixed IPv6 header) can be easily identified for OAM purposes. To facilitate access to the policy list, an offset, or pointer, value is included in the first element in the policy list field of the SR extension header. The node calculates the length of the segment list, and uses that value as an offset indicating where in the SR extension header the policy list begins. In one embodiment, the node reads the mule for each segment list element and adds the values included therein.
At 716, the node copies the first policy list element's mule to the first policy list element mule field at the top of the segment routing extension header. Doing so facilitates quick access to the length and any flags associated with the first policy element, which is the first segment in the segment path. As the number of bytes which can be processed by hardware, such as one or more CPUs associated with the node, is limited, efforts are made to include important information, e.g., information that is likely to be accessed, towards the front of the packet. This reduces the probability of a second read being used to access the information, and therefore avoids performance degradation.
At 718, the node locates the last segment list element in the segment list and copies the destination address from the IPv6 fixed header destination address field to the last segment list element in the segment list. Preserving the original destination address enables the node to restore to the destination address field in the IPv6 fixed header after the segment routing is complete, e.g., on egress from the SR domain. In one embodiment, the source address in the source address field of the IPv6 header is not changed. In another embodiment, the source address is overwritten with the source address of the ingress node. If the source address is to be overwritten, the source address can first be preserved, e.g., by copying the source address to a segment list element in the segment list or a policy list element in the policy list.
At 720, the node updates the destination address in the IPv6 fixed header. This involves copying the segment identifier corresponding to the first segment in the segment ID stack into the destination address field of the fixed IPv6 header. The node may also write additional information to the destination address field, such as an SRPID, an ASN, and the like.
At 722, the node determines whether a segment routing trace header is present. This involves determining whether the node immediately following the segment routing extension header has a type associated with segment routing trace headers. If so, the node updates the segment routing trace header at 724, as discussed in greater detail with regard to
At 802, the node reads the packet's destination address from the destination address field of the fixed IPv6 header. The SID associated with the packet is encoded in the destination address of the header. The node decodes the destination address and compares the SID in the destination address with the node's address. If the two are identical, the packet is destined for the node, and the node is the endpoint of the segment the packet is travelling (or has just travelled).
The node determines at 804 whether the packet is an SR packet. In one embodiment, this involves the node detecting that the destination address of the packet includes a segment routing protocol ID, an autonomous system number, and/or a segment ID in the destination address. If the node determines that the packet is not an SR packet, the node forwards the packet using IP forwarding information at 806. In one embodiment, forwarding a packet using IPv6 involves the node reading the destination address in the IPv6 header, looking up an associated egress interface in an IPv6 forwarding table, and forwarding the packet to the associated egress interface.
If the node determines that the packet is an SR packet, at 808 the node reads the segment routing extension header. In one embodiment, this involves determining the next element in the segment list. The node can determine the next element in the segment list by accessing a pointer in the header, such as the next element in the segment list field as shown at 308 of
Updating the destination address at 810, in one embodiment, involves checking the segment list element length, e.g., by reading the length in the mule of the preceding segment list element. If the length is 32 bits, the node extracts the 32-bit segment identifier and copies the segment identifier into the segment identifier field of the destination address. If the segment list element length is 64 bits, the node extracts an autonomous system number and the segment identifier and copies the autonomous system number and segment identifier to their respective fields in the destination address. If the next segment identifier is encoded as 128-bit address, the node extracts the 128-bit segment identifier (e.g., an IPv6 address) and copies the entire address into the destination address. If the next segment identifier is encoded as a 256-bit address, the node extracts 128 bits (e.g., the second 128 bits, which correspond to an IPv6 destination address) and copies the entire address into the destination address.
At 812, the node updates the segment routing extension header. In one embodiment, this involves updating the next element in the segment list to point to the next element in the segment list. To calculate the new offset to be included in the next element field, the node reads the length value in the mule associated with the previous segment list element (e.g., the segment list element corresponding to the segment for which the node is the endpoint) and adds the length value to the offset in the next element field, such that the next segment list element field points to the segment list element in the segment list that will next be inspected and it represents the next segment.
At 814, the node determines whether the node is an ingress node. In one embodiment, this involves the node comparing the incoming destination address with the last field with the policy list. In another embodiment, this involves the node determining that there is only one remaining element in the segment list. That is, the last segment list element in the segment list includes the destination address that was included in the packet when the packet arrived at an ingress node the SR domain. If the node detects, at 814, that the node is an egress node, the node executes an egress process at 816. The details of executing an egress process are discussed in greater detail with regard to
If the node detects that the node is not an egress node, the node determines, at 818, whether a segment routing trace extension header is present in the packet. In one embodiment, this involves the node examining the next header type field, as shown at 302 of
At 822, the node forwards the packet using SR forwarding information. In one embodiment, this involves the node accessing the SID included in the destination address of the packet, identifying an egress interface associated with the SID, e.g., by performing a lookup in an SR forwarding table, and sending the packet to the identified egress interface.
At 902, the node reads the packet's destination address as described above with regard to
If the node determines that the packet is an SR packet, the node determines at 908 whether the packet includes an SR trace extension header. In one embodiment, this involves the node examining the next header type within the SR extension header, for example, as shown in 302 of
The header also includes a top segment element length field at 1108 and a segment list 1110. The top segment element length field is an 8-bit field that gives the length of the top element in the segment stack. The first four bits are reserved. Following the four reserved bits is a length multiplier bit. If the length multiplier bit is not set, then the 3-bit value in the length portion of the field refers to 4-byte multiples. If the length multiplier bit is set, then the three bits of the length field refer to 16-byte multiples. Following the multiplier bit are three length bits. The length bits specify the length of the top segment element in either 4 or 16-byte multiplies, depending on whether or not the multiplier bit is set.
The segment list in the SR trace header works like a stack. As a packet traverses nodes in the path specified by the SR extension header, the nodes push segment elements onto the top of the segment list. Each node that is authorized to modify the trace extension header can push its segment element onto the segment list 1110. In this way, a record is created of which nodes a packet carrying a segment routing trace extension header has traversed. Each of the segment elements in segment list 1110 also includes a mule field, as discussed in greater with regard to
At 1402, the node sets the effective bit of the mule in the trace extension header. This indicates that the node has effectively transited the packet. At 1404, the node determines whether the node will be rerouting the packet. In one embodiment, this involves detecting whether a reroute condition exists and whether reroute backup paths have been computed. If the node is rerouting the packet, the node sets the fast reroute bit, at 1406.
Otherwise, the node determines whether the node is an ingress node at 1408. In one embodiment, this involves examining an ingress flag in a segment routing extension header. In another embodiment, the node can compare a segment ID associated with the node with a segment ID included in the second element of the policy list of an SR extension header included in the packet, such as the SR extension header shown in
At 1412, the node determines whether the node is an egress node. In one embodiment, this involves determining that the next element field in a segment routing extension header points to the last element of the segment list. In another embodiment, this involves comparing a segment ID associated with the node with a segment ID included in the third element of the policy list of an SR extension header included in the packet, such as the SR extension header shown in
At 1416, the node determines whether 4 or 16-byte multipliers should be applied to the length field of the mule. In one embodiment, this involves accessing a configuration value specified by, for example, an operator. If the configuration specifies that a 16-byte multiplier should be used, the node sets a length multiplier bit at 1418. At 1420, the node sets the three bit length value in the trace extension header's mule. In one embodiment, this involves calculating (e.g., by counting bytes) a length for the segment element directly under the segment element with which the mule is associated in the segment list.
At 1506, the node compares the segment ID from the extension header with the segment ID from the trace header to determine whether the segment IDs match. If the segment IDs are identical, this means that a node recorded (by pushing its segment ID onto the trace extension header) the packet transiting the node that the packet was intended to transit based on the segment list in the segment routing extension header with segment list. At 1508, the node determines whether the protected flag is set, for example in a trace extension header mule. If so, this means that while the packet transited the node intended it did so as a result of having been rerouted. If the packet was rerouted, the node indicates, at 1510, that the path was not completed and the method ends.
Otherwise, the node determines, at 1512 whether more segment IDs exist in the segment list in the segment routing extension header. If so, at 1514, the node selects segment ID from the segment routing extension header. At 1516, the node selects the next segment ID from the segment routing trace extension header. The method repeats iteratively until the node detects that no more segment IDs remain in the segment list included in the segment routing extension header. At 1518, the node indicates that the path was successfully completed.
As the destination address in the packet is Z, node A forwards the packet towards the destination address, namely to node B. As shown in
For purposes of OAM, policy list element 1 includes the first segment being traveled by the packet. Policy list element 1 also includes a mule which includes the length of policy list element 2. Policy list element 2 includes a segment identifier for node B, which is the ingress node. Policy list element 2 also includes a length value for policy list element 3. Policy list element 3 includes a segment identifier for node E, which is the egress node for the segment routing domain.
Also shown in
At
Example Node
The processors 1750 and 1760 of each line card 1702 may be mounted on a single printed circuit board. When a packet or packet and header are received, the packet or packet and header may be identified and analyzed by router 1700 in the following manner. Upon receipt, a packet (or some or all of its control information) or packet and header is sent from the one of port processors 1750(1,1)-(N,N) at which the packet or packet and header was received to one or more of those devices coupled to data bus 1730 (e.g., others of port processors 1750(1,1)-(N,N), forwarding engine 1710 and/or processor 1720). Handling of the packet or packet and header can be determined, for example, by forwarding engine 1710. For example, forwarding engine 1710 may determine that the packet or packet and header should be forwarded to one or more of port processors 1750(1,1)-(N,N). This can be accomplished by indicating to corresponding one(s) of port processor controllers 1760(1)-(N) that the copy of the packet or packet and header held in the given one(s) of port processors 1750(1,1)-(N,N) should be forwarded to the appropriate one of port processors 1750(1,1)-(N,N). In addition, or alternatively, once a packet or packet and header has been identified for processing, forwarding engine 1710, processor 1720 or the like can be used to process the packet or packet and header in some manner or add packet security information, in order to secure the packet. On a node sourcing such a packet or packet and header, this processing can include, for example, encryption of some or all of the packet's or packet and header's information, the addition of a digital signature or some other information or processing capable of securing the packet or packet and header. On a node receiving such a processed packet or packet and header, the corresponding process is performed to recover or validate the packet's or packet and header's information that has been thusly protected.
Node 1700 may also employ any number of software, firmware, and/or hardware configurations. For example, one or more of the embodiments disclosed herein may be encoded as a computer program (also referred to as computer software, software applications, computer-readable instructions, or computer control logic) on a computer-readable storage medium. Examples of computer-readable storage media include magnetic-storage media (e.g., hard disk drives and floppy disks), optical-storage media (e.g., CD- or DVD-ROMs), electronic-storage media (e.g., solid-state drives and flash media), and the like. Such computer programs can also be transferred to node 1700 for storage in memory via a network such as the Internet or upon a carrier medium.
The computer-readable medium containing the computer program may be loaded into node 1700. All or a portion of the computer program stored on the computer-readable medium may then be stored in system memory and/or various portions of storage devices coupled to node 1700 (not shown). When executed by processor 1720, a computer program loaded into node 1700 may cause processor 1720 to perform and/or be a means for performing the functions of one or more of the embodiments described and/or illustrated herein. Additionally or alternatively, one or more of the embodiments described and/or illustrated herein may be implemented in firmware and/or hardware.
Although the present disclosure has been described with respect to specific embodiments thereof, various changes and modifications may be suggested to one skilled in the art. It is intended such changes and modifications fall within the scope of the appended claims.
The present patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/525,000 filed on Jul. 29, 2019, entitled “Segment Routing Extension Headers”, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/050,180 filed Jul. 31, 2018, entitled “Segment Routing Extension Headers”; now U.S. Pat. No. 10,382,334 and issued on Aug. 13, 2019, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/677,210 filed Aug. 15, 2017, entitled “Segment Routing Extension Headers,” now U.S. Pat. No. 10,063,475 and issued on Aug. 28, 2018; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/212,084 filed on Mar. 14, 2014, entitled “Segment Routing Extension Headers”, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,762,488 and issued on Sep. 12, 2017; which claims the domestic benefit under Title 35 of the United States Code § 119(e) of expired U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/948,811 filed on Mar. 6, 2014 entitled “Segment Routing Extension Headers.” All are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety and for all purposes as if completely and fully set forth herein.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4853843 | Ecklund | Dec 1989 | A |
| 5448718 | Cohn | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5654695 | Olnowich | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5699521 | Iizuka | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5764624 | Endo | Jun 1998 | A |
| 6032197 | Birdwell | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6147976 | Shand | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6374303 | Armitage et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
| 6577600 | Bare | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6647428 | Bannai et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
| 6963570 | Agarwal | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 7023846 | Andersson et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7031253 | Katukam et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7031607 | Aswood Smith | Apr 2006 | B1 |
| 7061921 | Sheth | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7068654 | Joseph et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7072346 | Hama | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7088721 | Droz et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7154416 | Savage | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7174387 | Shand et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7180887 | Schwaderer | Feb 2007 | B1 |
| 7260097 | Casey | Aug 2007 | B2 |
| 7286479 | Bragg | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7330440 | Bryant | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 7359377 | Kompella et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
| 7373401 | Azad | May 2008 | B1 |
| 7420992 | Fang | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7430210 | Havala et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7463639 | Rekhter | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7466661 | Previdi et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7471669 | Sabesan et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7564803 | Minei et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7568047 | Aysan | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7577143 | Kompella | Aug 2009 | B1 |
| 7602778 | Guichard et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7610330 | Quinn | Oct 2009 | B1 |
| 7773630 | Huang et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7817667 | Frederiksen et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7885259 | Filsfils | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7885294 | Patel | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7894352 | Kompella et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7894458 | Jiang | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7903554 | Manur | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7940695 | Bahadur et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
| 7970929 | Mahalingaiah | Jun 2011 | B1 |
| 7983174 | Monaghan et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
| 8064441 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8121126 | Moisand | Feb 2012 | B1 |
| 8131126 | Kowalczyk et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8339973 | Pichumani et al. | Dec 2012 | B1 |
| 8422514 | Kothari et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
| 8542706 | Wang et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8611335 | Wu | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8619817 | Everson | Dec 2013 | B1 |
| 8630167 | Ashwood Smith | Jan 2014 | B2 |
| 8711883 | Kang | Apr 2014 | B2 |
| 8792384 | Banerjee et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
| 8848728 | Revah | Sep 2014 | B1 |
| 8923292 | Friskney | Dec 2014 | B2 |
| 8953590 | Aggarwal | Feb 2015 | B1 |
| 9036474 | Dibirdi et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9049233 | Frost et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
| 9094337 | Bragg | Jul 2015 | B2 |
| 9112734 | Edwards et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9118572 | Sajassi | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9319312 | Filsfils et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
| 9571349 | Previdi et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
| 9660897 | Gredler | May 2017 | B1 |
| 9749227 | Frost et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
| 9794148 | Ramachandran et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
| 10637675 | Wijnands et al. | Apr 2020 | B2 |
| 10805204 | Morris | Oct 2020 | B1 |
| 10880203 | Kumar | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 10958566 | Eckert et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
| 20010037401 | Soumiya | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010055311 | Trachewsky | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020103732 | Bundy et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20030016678 | Maeno | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030026271 | Erb et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
| 20030126272 | Corl et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030133412 | Iyer | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030142674 | Casey | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030142685 | Bare | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030231634 | Henderson | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040160958 | Oh | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040174879 | Basso et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040190527 | Okura | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040196840 | Amrutur et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040202158 | Takeno | Oct 2004 | A1 |
| 20040240442 | Grimminger | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050073958 | Atlas | Apr 2005 | A1 |
| 20050105515 | Reed | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050157724 | Montuno | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050213513 | Ngo | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050259655 | Cuervo et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050286411 | Alicherry | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060002304 | Ashwood-Smith | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060013209 | Somasundaram | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060056397 | Aizu | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060075134 | Aalto | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060080421 | Hu | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060092940 | Ansari | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060126272 | Horio et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060146696 | Li | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060187817 | Charzinski | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060262735 | Guichard | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060274716 | Oswal et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070019647 | Roy et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070041345 | Yarvis | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070053342 | Siereki | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070058638 | Guichard et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070245034 | Retana | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20080002699 | Rajsic | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080037117 | Seki et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080049610 | Linwong | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080075016 | Ashwood-Smith | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080075117 | Tanaka | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080084881 | Dharwadkar et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080101227 | Fujita et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080101239 | Goode | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080172497 | Mohan et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080189393 | Wagner | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080192762 | Kompella et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080212465 | Yan | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080225864 | Aissaoui et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
| 20080253367 | Ould-Brahim | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080259820 | White et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080316916 | Tazzari | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090003349 | Havemann | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090003364 | Fendick | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090041038 | Martini Luca et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090049194 | Csaszar | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090067445 | Diguet | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090080431 | Rekhter | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090135815 | Pacella | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090196289 | Shankar | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090247157 | Yoon | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090296710 | Agrawal | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100063983 | Groarke et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100088717 | Candelore et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100124231 | Kompella | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100142548 | Sheth | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100220739 | Ishiguro | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100232435 | Jabr | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100272110 | Allan et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100284309 | Allan et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100329153 | Xu | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110021193 | Hong | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110060844 | Allan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110063986 | Denechaeu | Mar 2011 | A1 |
| 20110090913 | Kim | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110149973 | Esteve Rothenberg | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110228780 | Ashwood-Smith | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110261722 | Awano | Oct 2011 | A1 |
| 20110268114 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110280123 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110286452 | Balus | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20120044944 | Kotha et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120063526 | Xiao | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120069740 | Lu et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120069845 | Carney et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120075988 | Lu | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| 20120082034 | Vasseur | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120099861 | Zheng | Apr 2012 | A1 |
| 20120106560 | Gumaste | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120120808 | Nandagopal et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120140679 | Inaba | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120170461 | Long | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120179796 | Nagaraj | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120213225 | Subramanian et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120218884 | Kini | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120236860 | Kompella et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120243539 | Keesara | Sep 2012 | A1 |
| 20120287818 | Corti et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20120307629 | Vasseur | Dec 2012 | A1 |
| 20130003728 | Kwong et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130051237 | Ong | Feb 2013 | A1 |
| 20130077476 | Enyedi | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130077624 | Keesara et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130077625 | Khera | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130077626 | Keesara et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
| 20130114402 | Ould-Brahim | May 2013 | A1 |
| 20130142052 | Burbidge | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130188634 | Magee | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130219034 | Wang et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130258842 | Mizutani | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130266012 | Dutta et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130266013 | Dutta et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130308948 | Swinkels | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130322449 | Hwang | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20130343204 | Geib et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
| 20140010074 | Ye | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140044036 | Kim | Feb 2014 | A1 |
| 20140098675 | Frost et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140160925 | Xu | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140169370 | Filsfils et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140177638 | Bragg et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
| 20140189156 | Morris | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140192677 | Chew | Jul 2014 | A1 |
| 20140254596 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269266 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269421 | Previdi et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269422 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269698 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269699 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269721 | Bashandy et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269725 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140269727 | Filsfils et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140286195 | Fedyk | Sep 2014 | A1 |
| 20140317259 | Previdi et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140341222 | Filsfils et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140369356 | Bryant et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150023328 | Thubert et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150030020 | Kini | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150109902 | Kumar | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150249587 | Kozat | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150256456 | Previdi et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150263940 | Kini | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20150319086 | Tripathi | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150326675 | Kini | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150334006 | Shao | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150381406 | Francois | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160006614 | Zhao | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160021000 | Previdi et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160034209 | Nanduri | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160034370 | Nanduri | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160119159 | Zhao | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160127142 | Tian | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160173366 | Saad | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160191372 | Zhang | Jun 2016 | A1 |
| 20160254987 | Eckert et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160254988 | Eckert et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160254991 | Eckert et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160352654 | Filsfils et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170019330 | Filfils et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170104673 | Bashandy et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170111277 | Previdi et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
| 20170302561 | Filsfils et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170302571 | Frost et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
| 20170346718 | Psenak et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170346737 | Previdi et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20170366453 | Previdi et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
| 20180034730 | Zhao | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180077051 | Nainar | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180083871 | Filsfils | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180198706 | Ceccarelli | Jul 2018 | A1 |
| 20180324090 | Duncan | Nov 2018 | A1 |
| 20190097925 | Previdi et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
| 20190222483 | Bashandy et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190312806 | Psenak et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
| 20190349303 | Previdi et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
| 20200044936 | Previdi et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
| 20200358694 | Psenak et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
| 20200382379 | Bashandy et al. | Dec 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 1726679 | Jan 2006 | CN |
| 101247253 | Aug 2008 | CN |
| 101399688 | Apr 2009 | CN |
| 101496357 | Jul 2009 | CN |
| 101616466 | Dec 2009 | CN |
| 101803293 | Aug 2010 | CN |
| 101841442 | Sep 2010 | CN |
| 101931548 | Dec 2010 | CN |
| 102098222 | Jun 2011 | CN |
| 102132533 | Jul 2011 | CN |
| 102299852 | Dec 2011 | CN |
| 102498694 | Jun 2012 | CN |
| 102714625 | Oct 2012 | CN |
| WO 2008021195 | Feb 2008 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Aggarwal, R., et al., Juniper Networks; E. Rosen, Cisco Systems, Inc.; “MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context Specific Label Space;” Network Working Group; Internet Draft; Jan. 2005; pp. 1-8. |
| Akiya, N. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing (SR)”; draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-sr-00; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; Jun. 7, 2013; 7 pages. |
| Akiya, N. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing (SR)”; draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-sr-01; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; Dec. 5, 2013; 7 pages. |
| Akiya, N. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing (SR)”; draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-sr-02; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; Jun. 7, 2014; 7 pages. |
| Akiya, N. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing (SR)”; draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-sr-03; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; Aug. 23, 2014; 7 pages. |
| Akiya, N. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Segment Routing (SR)”; draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-sr-04; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; Feb. 23, 2015; 7 pages. |
| Akiya, N., “Segment Routing Implications on BFD”; Sep. 9, 2013; 3 pages. |
| Alcatel-Lucent, “Segment Routing and Path Computation Element—Using Traffic Engineering to Optimize Path Placement and Efficiency in IP/MPLS Networks”; Technology White Paper; 2015; 28 pages. |
| Aldrin, S., et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) Use Cases”; draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case-08; Network Working Group; Internet-Draft; May 6, 2016; 15 pages. |
| Awduche, Daniel O., et al., “RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Aug. 2000, pp. 1-12. |
| Awduche, Daniel O., et al., “RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 3209, Dec. 2001, pp. 1-61. |
| Awduche, D. et al., “Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS”; Network Working Group; Request for Comments: 2702; Sep. 1999; pp. 1-29. |
| Awduche, D. et al., “Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering”; Network Working Group; Request for Comments: 3272; May 2002; pp. 1-71. |
| Backes, P. and Rudiger Geib, “Deutsche Telekom AG's Statement About IPR Related to Draft-Geig-Spring-OAM-Usecase-01,” Feb. 5, 2014, pp. 1-2. |
| Bryant, S. et al., Cisco Systems, “IP Fast Reroute Using Tunnels-draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-03”, Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Nov. 16, 2007, pp. 1-30. |
| Bryant, S., et al., Cisco Systems, “Remote LFA FRR,” draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-04, Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Nov. 22, 2013, pp. 1-24. |
| Cisco Systems, Inc., “Introduction to Intermediate System-to-Intermediate System Protocol,” published 1992 -2002; pp. 1-25. |
| Crabbe, E. et al., “PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Protection with Stateful PCE Draft-Crabbe-PCE-Stateful-PCT-Protection-00,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Apr. 2013, pp. 1-12. |
| Crabbe, E., et al., Stateful PCE Extensions for MPLS-TE LSPs, draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-00; Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Oct. 15, 2012, pp. 1-15. |
| Deering, S., et al., Cisco, Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, Network Working Group, Request for Comments 2460, Dec. 1998, pp. 1-39. |
| Eckert, T., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER-TE, draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-00,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Mar. 5, 2015, pp. 1-21. |
| Eckert, T., et al., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication BIER-TE, draft-eckert-bier-te-arch-01,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Jul. 5, 2015, pp. 1-23. |
| Farrel, A., et al., Old Dog Consulting, A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture, Network Working Group, Request for Comments 4655, Aug. 2006, pp. 1-80. |
| Farrel, A., et al., Old Dog Consulting, Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering—Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions, Network Working Group, Request for Comments 5151, Feb. 2008, pp. 1-25. |
| Fedyk, D., et al., Alcatel-Lucent, Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Control Ethernet Provider Backbone Traffic Engineering (PBB-TE), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Request for Comments 6060, Mar. 2011, pp. 1-20. |
| Filsfils, C., et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Segment Routing Architecture,” draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-00, Jun. 28, 2013; pp. 1-28. |
| Filsfils, C., et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Segment Routing Architecture”; draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-01, Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Oct. 21, 2013, pp. 1-28. |
| Filsfils, C. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Segment Routing Interoperability with LDP”; draft-filsfils-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-01.txt; Apr. 18, 2014, pp. 1-16. |
| Filsfils, C. et al., “Segment Routing Architecture”; draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-07; Network Working Group, Internet-Draft; Dec. 15, 2015; pp. 1-24. |
| Filsfils, C. et al.; “Segment Routing Use Cases”; draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-01; Network Working Group; Internet-Draft; Jul. 14, 2013; pp. 1-46. |
| Filsfils, C. et al., “Segment Routing Use Cases”, draft-filsfils-rtgwg-segment-routing-use-cases-02; Network Working Group; Internet-Draft; Oct. 21, 2013; pp. 1-36. |
| Filsfils, C. et al., “Segment Routing with MPLS Data Plane”, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-05; Network Working Group; Internet-Draft; Jul. 6, 2016; 15 pages. |
| Frost, D., et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-Ach) Advertisement Protocol,” draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-00, Internet-Draft, Jan. 27, 2012, pp. 1-17. |
| Frost, D., et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-Ach) Advertisement Protocol,” draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-08, Internet-Draft, Jun. 7, 2013, pp. 1-22. |
| Frost, D., et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-Ach) Advertisement Protocol,” Request for Comments 7212, Jun. 2014, pp. 1-23. |
| Geib, R., “Segment Routing Based OAM Use Case,” IETF 87, Berlin, Jul./Aug. 2013, pp. 1-3. |
| Geib, R., Deutsch Telekom, “Use Case for a Scalable and Topology Aware MPLS data plan monitoring System,” draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-00; Internet-Draft, Oct. 17, 2013, pp. 1-7. |
| Geib, R., Deutsch Telekom, “Use Case for a Scalable and Topology Aware MPLS Data Plan Monitoring System,” draft-geib-spring-oam-usecase-01; Internet-Draft, Feb. 5, 2014, pp. 1-10. |
| Gredler, H., et al., Juniper Networks, Inc., “Advertising MPLS Labels in IS-IS draft-gredler-isis-label-advertisement-00,” Internet-Draft; Apr. 5, 2013; pp. 1-13. |
| Gredler, H. et al., hannes@juniper.net, IETF87, Berlin, “Advertising MPLS LSPs in the IGP,” draft-gredler-ospf-label-advertisement, May 21, 2013; pp. 1-14. |
| Guilbaud, Nicolas and Ross Cartlidge, “Google—Localizing Packet Loss in a Large Complex Network,” Feb. 5, 2013, pp. 1-43. |
| Imaizumi, H., et al.; Networks, 2005; “FMEHR: An Alternative Approach to Multi-Path Forwarding on Packed Switched Networks,” pp. 196-201. |
| Kompella, K. et al, Juniper Networks, “Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE),” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 4206, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-14. |
| Kompella, K., et al., Juniper Networks, Inc., “Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures,” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 4379, Feb. 2006, pp. 1-50. |
| Kompella, K. et al., Juniper Networks, “Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling,” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 4761, Jan. 2007, pp. 1-28. |
| Kumar, N. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane,” draft-kumar-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00, Oct. 21, 2013, pp. 1-12. |
| Kumar, N. et al., “Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane,” draft-kumarkini-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00; Network Work Group; Internet-Draft; Jan. 2, 2014, pp. 1-15. |
| Kumar, N. et al, “OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network”; draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-00; Spring; Internet-Draft; Feb. 14, 2014; 6 pages. |
| Kumar, N. et al, “OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network”; draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-01;Spring; Internet-Draft; Jul. 1, 2014; 6 pages. |
| Kumar, N. et al, “OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network”; draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-02; Spring; Internet-Draft; Dec. 31, 2014; 6 pages. |
| Kumar, N. et al, “OAM Requirements for Segment Routing Network”; draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement-03; Spring; Internet-Draft; Mar. 9, 2015; 6 pages. |
| Kumar, N. et al., “Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using MPLS Dataplane,” draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-00; Network Work Group; Internet Draft; May 10, 2016; 17 pages. |
| Pignataro, C. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6 and MPLS”, draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-ip-06; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; May 6, 2016; 8 pages. |
| Pignataro, C. et al., “Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD)”; draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base-11; Internet Engineering Task Force; Internet-Draft; May 6, 2016; 21 pages. |
| Previdi, S. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Segment Routing with IS-IS Routing Protocol, draft-previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing-00,” IS-IS for IP Internets, Internet-Draft, Mar. 12, 2013, pp. 1-27. |
| Previdi, S. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Segment Routing with IS-IS Routing Protocol, draft-previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing-02,” Internet-Draft, Mar. 20, 2013, A55 pp. 1-27. |
| Previdi, S. et al., “IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing”; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-05; IS-IS for IP Internets, Internet-Draft; Jun. 30, 2015; pp. 1-37. |
| Previdi, S. et al., “IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing”; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-06; IS-IS for IP Internets, Internet-Draft; Dec. 14, 2015; pp. 1-39. |
| Psenak, P., et al. “OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing”, draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-05; Open Shortest Path First IGP; Internet-Draft; Jun. 26, 2015; pp. 1-29. |
| Raszuk, R., NTT I3, “MPLS Domain Wide Labels,” draft-raszuk-mpls-domain-wide-labels-00, MPLS Working Group, Internet-Draft, Jul. 14, 2013, pp. 1-6. |
| Rosen, E. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “BGP/MPLS VPNs”, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 2547; Mar. 1999, pp. 1-26. |
| Rosen, E. et al., Cisco Systems, Inc., “Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture”, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 3031; Jan. 2001, pp. 1-61. |
| Sivabalan, S., et al.; “PCE-Initiated Traffic Engineering Path Setup in Segment Routed Networks; draft-sivabalan-pce-segmentrouting-00.txt,” Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF; Standard Working Draft, Internet Society (ISOC) 4, Rue Des Falaises CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland, Jun. 2013, pp. 1-16. |
| Li, T., et al., Redback Networks, Inc., “IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering,” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 5305, Oct. 2008, 17 pages. |
| Tian, Albert J. et al., Redback Networks, “Source Routed MPLS LSP Using Domain Wide Label, draft-tian-mpls-lsp-source-route-01.txt”, Network Working Group, Internet Draft, Jul. 2004, pp. 1-12. |
| Vasseur, JP, et al.; Cisco Systems, Inc. “A Link-Type Sub-TLV to Convey the Number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signaled with Zero Reserved Bandwidth Across a Link,” Network Working Group, Request for Comments 5330; Oct. 2008, 16 pages. |
| Vasseur, JP, et al.; Cisco Systems, Inc. Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP): Request for Comments: 5440, Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF; Standard, Internet Society (ISOC) 4, Rue Des Falaises CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland, chapters 4-8, Mar. 2009; pp. 1-87. |
| Wijnands, Ijsbrand and Bob Thomas, Cisco Systems, Inc,; Yuji Kamite and Hitoshi Fukuda, NTT Communications; “Multicast Extensions for LDP;” Network Working Group; Internet Draft; Mar. 2005; pp. 1-12. |
| Previdi, et al., “IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)” draft-previdi-6man-segment-routing-header-00, Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Mar. 5, 2014, 22 pages. |
| Awduche D.O., et al., “RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels,” draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt, Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Feb. 2001, 61 Pages. |
| Aggarwal R., et al., “MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context Specific Label Space,” draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-00.txt, Network Working Group, Internet Draft, Juniper Networks, Cisco Systems, Inc., Jan. 2005, pp. 1-8, URL: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-00 [Retrieved on Oct. 22, 2007]. |
| Backes P., et al., “Deutsche Telekom AG's Statement about IPR Related to Draft-Geig-Spring-OAM-Usecase-01,” IPR Details, Granted Date: Aug. 23, 2012, Submitted Date: Feb. 5, 2014, pp. 1-2, URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2314 [Retrieved on Apr. 16, 2014]. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20210359942 A1 | Nov 2021 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61948811 | Mar 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16525000 | Jul 2019 | US |
| Child | 17387114 | US | |
| Parent | 16050180 | Jul 2018 | US |
| Child | 16525000 | US | |
| Parent | 15677210 | Aug 2017 | US |
| Child | 16050180 | US | |
| Parent | 14212084 | Mar 2014 | US |
| Child | 15677210 | US |
