Packet forwarding is a process of relaying packets from one communication link to another by nodes in a network. A packet is a formatted unit of data that typically contains control information and payload data. Control information may include: source and destination IP addresses, error detection codes like checksums, sequencing information, etc. Control information is typically found in packet headers and trailers, with payload data in between. Network nodes may take form in one or more routers, one or more bridges, one or more switches, or any other suitable communications processing device.
At network nodes where multiple outgoing links are available, the choice of link to use for packet forwarding requires a decision process that, while simple in concept, can be complex. Since packet forwarding decisions are handled by nodes, the total time required for this can become a major limiting factor in overall network performance.
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is a mechanism where network nodes (e.g., routers) capable of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) exchange labels with their neighbors. These labels can be subsequently attached to packets and used by nodes to make packet forwarding decisions. For purposes of explanation only, nodes that make packet forwarding decisions based on labels will be referred to as LDP nodes. Packet forwarding based on labels stands in stark contrast to traditional Internet Protocol (IP) routing in which packet forwarding decisions are made using IP addresses contained within packets. Because LDP nodes use labels, there is no need for LDP nodes to examine the contents (e.g., IP addresses) of packets to make packet forwarding decisions.
The present disclosure may be better understood, and its numerous objects, features, and advantages made apparent to those skilled in the art by referencing the accompanying drawings.
An apparatus and method is disclosed for segment routing (SR) over label distribution protocol (LDP). In one embodiment, the method includes a node receiving a packet with an attached segment ID. In response, the node may attach a label to the packet. Thereafter, the node may forward the packet with the attached label and segment ID to another node via a label switched path (LSP).
IP routing and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) are distinct packet forwarding mechanisms. IP routing uses IP addresses inside packet headers to make forwarding decisions. In contrast, LDP nodes (i.e., nodes employing MPLS) can make forwarding decisions using short path identifiers called labels that are attached to packets. Segment routing (SR) is yet another mechanism that can be employed. SR is similar to MPLS in many regards. For example, forwarding decisions in SR can be based on short path identifiers called segment IDs that are attached to packets. However, substantial differences exist between SR and MPLS as will be more fully described below.
IP routing uses routing tables that maintain forwarding information to various destinations. In one embodiment, when a packet arrives at a node, the node can use the destination IP address in the packet header to access a routing table and lookup corresponding forwarding information such as an egress interface, which is the interface or port to be used to forward the packet to the next node on a path to the packet's final destination. After the packet is forwarded the next node performs its own routing table lookup using the same destination IP address, and so on.
MPLS is commonly employed in provider networks or networks that provide packet transport and other services for customers. Packets enter an MPLS provider network via an ingress provider edge (PE) node, travel hop-by-hop along a label-switched path (LSP) that includes one or more core nodes, and exit the provider network via an egress PE node.
Packets are forwarded along an LSP based on LDP forwarding tables and labels attached to packets. Labels allow for the use of very fast and simple forwarding engines in the dataplane of LDP 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 provider 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 IP 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 plane of LDP nodes. Two nodes, called LDP peers, exchange label mapping information on a FEC by FEC basis. The exchange of information can be bi-directional. LDP generates labels for, and exchanges labels between, peer nodes. LDP can be used to build and maintain LDP forwarding tables that map labels and node interfaces. These forwarding tables can be subsequently used by nodes to forward packets through MPLS networks as more fully described below.
When a packet is received by an ingress PE node of an MPLS network, the ingress PE 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 may also be used to determine the FEC. Once determined, the ingress PE node can access a table to select a label that is mapped to the FEC. The table may also map an egress interface to the FEC. Before the ingress PE node forwards the packet via the egress interface, the ingress PE node pushes or attaches the label to the packet.
A packet with attached label can be forwarded along an LSP, and nodes in the LSP can make forwarding decisions based on labels. To illustrate, when an LDP node receives a packet with an attached label (i.e., incoming label), an LDP forwarding table in the node can be accessed to read an egress interface and a label (i.e., an outgoing label) mapped to the incoming label. Before the packet is forwarded via the egress interface, the node may swap the incoming label with the outgoing label. The next hop receives the packet and attached label and may perform the same process. This process is often called hop-by-hop forwarding along a non-explicit path. The egress PE node in the LSP may pop or remove an incoming label before the packet is forwarded to a customer. To illustrate,
Segment routing (SR) is a mechanism in which packets can be forwarded using SR forwarding tables and segment IDs attached to packets. Like MPLS, SR enables very fast and simple forwarding engines in the dataplane 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) are similar to LDP nodes in many ways. Since most SR nodes make forwarding decisions based on segment IDs as opposed to labels, however, SR nodes need not employ LDP in their control planes. Unless otherwise indicated, an SR node lacks LDP in the control plane. Additional differences can exist between SR nodes and LDP nodes.
SR can be employed in provider networks. Packets enter an SR enabled provider network via an ingress provider edge (PE) node, travel hop-by-hop along a segment-switched path (SSP) that includes one or more core nodes, and exit the provider network via an egress PE node. The remaining disclosure will make reference to an autonomous, provider network that operates under one administrative domain. In general a provider network may contain a contiguous set of nodes.
Like labels, segment IDs are short (relative to an IP address or a FEC), fixed-length identifiers. Segment IDs may correspond to topological segments of a provider network or services provided by nodes thereof. Topological segments can be one hop paths to SR nodes, or they can be multi hop paths to SR nodes. Topological segments act as sub-paths that can be combined to form an SSP. Stacks of segment IDs can represent SSPs as will be described below. Like LSPs, SSPs can be associated with FECs. Thus segment ID stacks may correspond to FECs.
There are several types of segment IDs including but not limited to: nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs, and service-segment IDs. A nodal-segment ID represents a one-hop or a multi-hop, shortest path (SPT) within the provider network to an associated SR node. Nodal-segment IDs are assigned to respective SR nodes within the provider network so that no two SR nodes in the provider network are assigned the same nodal-segment ID. In one embodiment, all assigned nodal-segment IDs are selected from a predefined ID range (e.g., [64, 5000]) for the provider network. The range for nodal-segment IDs may be different from a predefined range for labels.
Nodal-segment IDs can be mapped in memory to unique identifiers. For purposes of explanation only, nodal-segment IDs are mapped to respective node loopback prefix IP addresses. One of ordinary skill understands that node loopback prefix IP addresses (node prefixes for short) distinguish the SR nodes from each other within the provider network. The node prefixes can be used by link state protocols such as open shortest path first (OSPF) or intermediate system to intermediate system (IS-IS), or modifications thereof, operating in the control plan of an SR node to identify egress interfaces for shortest paths (SPTs) to respective SR nodes. Once identified, the SPT egress interfaces can be mapped to nodal-segment IDs within an SR forwarding table as the SR forwarding table is created or subsequently updated.
An adjacency-segment ID represents a link between adjacent SR nodes. For purposes of explanation only, this disclosure will refer to a link between nodes as an adjacency segment (hereafter adjacency). Adjacencies can be uniquely identified in the provider network. For purposes of explanation only, this disclosure will identify an adjacency (hereafter adjacency-ID) using the node prefixes of nodes between which the adjacency is immediately positioned. To illustrate, for an adjacency between two nodes identified by node prefix X and node prefix Y, the adjacency will be identified herein as adjacency-ID XY. This disclosure will presume that only one adjacency exists between nodes in the provider network, it being understood the present disclosure should not be limited thereto. As such, adjacencies are unique in the provider network of this disclosure. Since adjacencies are unique, it follows that adjacency-IDs are likewise unique. Adjacency-IDs should not be confused with adjacency-segment IDs; adjacency-segment IDs may not be unique within the provider network domain.
Each SR node can assign a distinct adjacency-segment ID for each of the SR node's adjacencies. Separate SR nodes may assign the same adjacency-segment ID. Adjacency-segment IDs, however, are locally significant; separate SR nodes may assign the same adjacency-segment ID, but that adjacency-segment ID represents distinct adjacencies. In one embodiment, adjacency-segment IDs are selected from a predefined range that is outside the predefined range for nodal-segment IDs. The predefined range of adjacency-segment IDs may also be outside the predefined range for labels.
Service-segment IDs correspond to packet services performed by SR nodes such as deep packet inspection (DPI) and/or filtering. Each SR node can assign a distinct service-segment ID for each of the SR node's packet services. For the purposes of explanation only, a node will offer no more than one service. Service-segment IDs are locally significant. Like adjacency-IDs, separate SR nodes may assign the same service-segment ID for their respective services. Service-segment IDs can be selected from the same range as the adjacency-segment IDs, or service-segment IDs can selected from a predefined range that is distinct from the ranges for labels, adjacency-segment IDs and/or nodal-segment IDs. The service-segment IDs can be assigned based on service type, it being understood the present disclosure should not be limited thereto. As an example, adjacency-segment ID 5001 is always mapped to deep packet inspection within the provider network, regardless of the node or nodes that perform the service.
SR nodes can advertise their nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs, service-segment IDs, and node prefixes to other SR nodes in the provider network using a protocol such as interior gateway protocol (IGP) or a modification thereof. SR nodes can use the nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs, service-segment IDs, node prefixes, and/or other information to create or update SR forwarding tables and/or segment ID stacks.
In one embodiment the SR nodes can advertise their nodal-segment ID/node prefix pairs, adjacency-segment ID/adjacency-ID pairs, and/or service-segment ID/node prefix pairs. The control planes of an SR node can receive and use the nodal-segment ID/node prefix pairs and a link-state protocol such as IS-IS or OSPF, or modified versions thereof, to identify egress interfaces for SPTs to SR nodes. An SPT egress interface, once identified, can be mapped to its respective nodal-segment ID in the node's SR forwarding table. Nodes also map their adjacency-segment IDs to egress interfaces for respective adjacencies 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/adjacency-ID pair should be the only node in the provider network that has a SR forwarding table that maps the adjacency-segment ID to an egress interface connected to an adjacency identified by the adjacency-ID. Service-segment IDs are also locally significant and should only be mapped in the nodes in which they are advertised. Unlike adjacency-segment IDs, however, service-segment IDs are not mapped to egress interfaces. Rather, the service-segment IDs are mapped to respective services that can be implemented by the node.
Segment Routing (SR) enables segment-switched paths (SSPs), which can be used for transporting packets through the provider network. Like LSPs, SSPs are typically associated with FECs, and can be established for a variety of purposes, such as to guarantee a certain level of performance. Packets associated with the same FEC will typically follow the same SSP of SR nodes through the provider network. Nodes in SSPs make forwarding decisions based on segment IDs, not based on the contents (e.g., destination IP addresses) of packets. As such, packet forwarding in SSPs is not dependent on a particular Layer 2 technology.
SR nodes can use nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs, and service-segment IDs they receive in advertisements from other SR nodes in order to create ordered lists of segment IDs (i.e., segment ID stacks). Segment ID stacks correspond to SSPs, respectively, that forward packets between nodes (e.g., SR enabled ingress and egress nodes) in the provider network. Segment IDs in a stack may correspond to respective segments or sub paths of a corresponding SSP. When an SR source node (e.g., an SR ingress PE node) receives a packet, the node can calculate a FEC for the packet in much the same way that LDP ingress PE nodes calculate FECs for packets received from a customer edge router. The SR source node uses the FEC it calculates to select a segment ID stack mapped thereto. The SR source node can add the selected segment ID stack to a header, and then attach the header to the packet. The packet with attached stack can traverse the segments of the SSP in an order that corresponds to the list order of the segment IDs in the stack. A forwarding engine operating in the dataplane of each SR node can use a segment ID within the stack and an SR forwarding table in order to forward the packet and header to the next node in the SSP. As the packet and attached header are forwarded along the SSP in a hop-by-hop fashion, the attached stack of segment IDs remains unchanged in one embodiment.
To illustrate general concepts of SR,
Provider network 202 consists of SR nodes 204-222. Nodes 204-210 are assigned unique nodal-segment IDs 64-67, respectively, SR enabled routers 212-218 are assigned unique nodal-segment ID's 68-71, respectively, and SR enabled router 222 is assigned unique nodal-segment ID of 72. Each of the SR nodes 204-222 have interfaces that are identified as shown. For example, node 204 has three interfaces designated 1-3, respectively. Each of the nodes 204-222 is assigned a node prefix that is unique within network 202. Node prefixes A-D are provided for nodes 204-210, respectively, node prefixes M-P are provided for nodes 212-218 respectively, and node prefix Z is provided for node 222. As noted above, these node prefixes are unique within network 202 and can be used for several purposes such as calculating the topology of network 202, which in turn can be used to calculate SPTs. Nodes 204-222 can also assign locally significant adjacency-segment IDs and/or service-segment IDs. For example, node 208 can assign adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 for adjacencies CB, CD, and CO, respectively, and node 208 can assign service-segment ID 5001 for a deep packet inspection service provided by the node.
Each of SR nodes 204-222 can advertise its service-segment ID, adjacency-segment ID(s), nodal-segment ID, and node prefix to the other nodes in network 202. For example, node 208 can generate and send one or more advertisements that: map adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 to adjacency IDs CB, CD, and CO, respectively; map nodal-segment ID 66 to node prefix C, and; map service-segment ID 5001 to a deep packet inspection service. Using the advertisements they receive, the control planes of nodes 204-222 can generate respective SR forwarding tables for use in the dataplanes. For example, node 208 can generate example SR forwarding table 240 using a link state protocol and the advertisements that node 208 receives directly or indirectly from nodes 204, 206, 210, 212-218, and 222. Example SR forwarding table 240 maps adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 to node interface IDs 1-3, respectively, and nodal-segment IDs such as 64, 65, 67, 70, and 72, to node 208 interface identifiers 1, 1, 2, 3, and 2, respectively, which are the SPT egress interface identifiers determined by node 208 for node prefixes A, B, D, 0, and Z respectively. It is noted that in the embodiment shown, only SR forwarding table 240 maps adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 to interface identifiers; SR forwarding tables in the other nodes of network 202 should not map adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003.
In addition to creating SR forwarding tables based on received segment ID advertisements, several SR nodes 204-222 can calculate segment ID stacks for respective SSPs. For example, node 204 calculates example segment ID stack 224 for an SSP between ingress node 204 and egress node 222. Example segment stack 224 can be calculated for a particular FEC (e.g., FEC F).
Example stack 224 includes four segment IDs: nodal-segment IDs 66 and 72 advertised by nodes 208 and 222, respectively; service-segment ID 5001 advertised by node 208, and; adjacency-segment ID 9003 advertised by node 208. Stack 224 corresponds to an SSP in which packets flow in order through nodes 204, 206, 208, 216, 218, and 222. Packets flowing through this SSP are also subjected to the deep packet inspection service provided by node 208.
SR node 204 is an ingress PE node for packets received from customer edge router CE1. In response to receiving a packet, ingress SR node 204 can calculate a FEC based upon, for example, one or more IP addresses contained within the packet. After calculating the FEC for the packet, node 204 can select a segment ID stack, which is mapped to the calculated FEC from a table stored in memory (not shown). For example, node 204 can calculate FEC F for packet P based on the destination IP address in packet P. As noted above, FEC F is mapped to example stack 224. Node 204 may then create a header such as header 226 for packet P that contains the selected segment ID stack 224. Example header 226, as shown in
Example segment stack 224 lists segment IDs that correspond to one hop and multi hop segments of provider network 202 that packets with stack 224 traverse to reach egress node 222. The segments collectively form the SSP corresponding to stack 224. Once header 226 is attached to packet P, ingress SR enable node 204 may access a SR forwarding table (not shown) using the active segment ID of the segment ID stack 224. Again, the active segment ID is identified by the active segment ID pointer 230. In the embodiment shown in
With continuing reference to
Presuming the active segment ID does not equal the SR node's nodal-segment ID in step 304, or the active segment ID is not a service-segment ID as determined in step 310, the process proceeds to step 316 where the SR node accesses its SR forwarding table to read the egress interface ID that is mapped to the active segment ID. In step 320 the SR node determines whether the active segment ID is an adjacency-segment ID or a nodal-segment ID. This determination may be implemented by simply comparing the active segment ID with the designated range of nodal-segment IDs that are available for assignment within the network. Thus, if the active segment ID is found to be a number within the designated range, the active segment ID is a nodal-segment ID and the SR node forwards packet P and attached header H to the next node via the egress interface that is identified in step 316. Otherwise, the active segment ID is an adjacency-segment ID, and the active segment pointer 324 is incremented before packet P and header H are forwarded to the next node via the egress interface that is identified in step 316.
It is noted that in an alternative embodiment, an active segment ID pointer is not needed. In this alternative embodiment, the segment ID at the top of the stack is considered the active segment ID, and segment IDs can be popped from the segment ID stack at steps 306, 314 or 324 instead of incrementing a pointer in the header as shown. In this alternative embodiment, however, the stack changes substantially as the packet and header traverse the SSP.
With continuing reference to
With continuing reference to
SR Over LDP
Provider network 400 includes nodes 402-420 coupled between customer edge routers CE1-CE3. PE Nodes 402, 412, and 420 are SR enabled, core nodes 406 and 414 are LDP enabled, core nodes 410 and 418 are SR enabled, and core nodes 404, 408, and 416 are SR/LDP enabled. In
All nodes in a hybrid provider network are assigned respective node prefixes that are unique within the provider network. Nodes 402-420 are assigned node prefixes A-J, respectively. Each of the nodes can advertise its node prefix using an IGP protocol or a modification thereof. Each of these advertisements may include a node type identifier that indicates the node's type as LDP enabled, SR enabled, or SR/LDP enabled. The node prefix advertisements allow each of the nodes 401-420 to create a topology map of provider network 400. In one embodiment, the topology map may include information that identifies those nodes that are LDP enabled, SR enabled, and SR/LDP enabled using the node type identifiers mentioned above. Using a link state protocol like IS-IS or OSPF, each of the nodes 402-420 can create a routing table that maps SPT egress interfaces to node prefixes for the nodes.
All SR and SR/LDP nodes in network 400 are assigned a unique nodal-segment ID. Moreover, adjacencies and services are assigned adjacency-segment IDs and service-segment IDs, respectively, in accordance with the SR principles set forth above. For purposes of explanation only, SR/LDP nodes in network 400 do not advertise adjacency-segment IDs for adjacencies directly coupling LDP nodes.
The SR and SR/LDP nodes in network 400 can advertise their respective nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs and service-segment IDs to all other nodes in the network. For example, each SR or SR/LDP node may advertise its nodal-segment ID/node prefix mapping, and its adjacency-segment ID/adjacency ID mapping(s) to all other nodes. If an SR or SR/LDP offers a service, the node may also advertise a service-segment ID/service mapping. LDP nodes 406 and 414 will not understand the segment ID advertisements they receive. One skilled in the art understands that SR nodes and SR/LDP nodes do not receive segment ID advertisements from LDP nodes.
Each SR/LDP node in a hybrid network like that shown in
LDP and SR/LDP nodes in network 400 can bi-directionally exchanging label mappings using standard LDP. The exchange enables the creation of LDP forwarding tables and thus LSPs between SR/LDP nodes via LDP nodes in network 400. For the purposes of explanation only, these LSPs will be referred to as core LSPs, and the SR/LDP nodes of these core LSPs will be referred to as core source nodes and/or core destination nodes. It is noted that in an alternative embodiment, core LSPs can facilitate transmission of packets between a source SR/LDP node and a destination SR node via a core LSP. However, the remaining disclosure will presume core LSPs between SR/LDP nodes, it being understood the disclosure should not be limited thereto.
Core LDP nodes in network 400 can create their LDP forwarding tables in the same manner as the LDP nodes of
LDP forwarding tables in SR/LDP nodes in one embodiment do not map incoming labels to respective outgoing label/egress interface ID pairs. Each SR/LDP node can create an LDP forwarding table that maps outgoing labels/egress interface ID pairs to respective node prefixes for destination SR/LDP nodes that can be reached via respective core LSPs. For example, SR/LDP node 404 can create an LDP forwarding table that maps outgoing label L1/egress interface ID 2 to node prefix D, and outgoing label L2/egress interface ID 3 to node prefix H. These LDP forwarding table mappings enable SR/LDP node 404 to forward packets on separate core LSPs to SR/LDP nodes 408 and 416. In this embodiment, the LDP forwarding tables for SR/LDP nodes enable label push and pop operations as will be more fully described below.
Each SR and SR/LDP node in a hybrid network can create an SR forwarding table. The SR nodes can create their SR forwarding tables in the same manner as described above with respect to
Like SR nodes, SR/LDP nodes can identify the SPT egress interface ID for each SR or SR/LDP node using the node's advertised node prefix. The SPT egress interface ID is then mapped in the SR forwarding table to the nodal-segment ID that is assigned to the SR or SR/LDP node. After nodal-segment IDs are mapped to SPT egress interface IDs, the SR forwarding table should be updated to account for intervening LDP nodes. More particularly the SR forwarding table should be updated to account for SPT egress interface IDs that are adjacent to LDP nodes. In one embodiment, SR/LDP nodes can use their LDP interface tables (e.g., table 450) mentioned above to identify SPT egress interface IDs that are mapped in the SR forwarding table to adjacent LDP nodes. When such an SPT egress interface ID is identified, the SR/LDP node can use its routing table to identify the topologically nearest or first SR/LDP node in the SPT. The SPT egress interface ID is then swapped in the SR forwarding table with the node prefix for the nearest SR/LDP node in the SPT.
The SR forwarding table updating method of
SR nodes within the hybrid provider network 400, including PE SR nodes, can forward packets in accordance with the process described with reference to
With continuing reference to
The SR/LDP node determines in step 604 whether a label has been added to the header H. In one embodiment, a label can be added to a header by pushing the label on the segment ID stack. There are numerous ways in which step 604 can be implemented. For example, the SR/LDP can presume that a label is attached if the SR/LDP node receives the packet P via an interface that is adjacent to an LDP node. The LDP interface table mentioned above can be used by the SR/LDP node to make a determination of whether a packet was received at an interface adjacent to an LDP node. Alternatively, in the embodiment where the labels are pushed onto segment ID stacks and are selected from a range that is distinct from the range from which nodal-segment IDs, adjacency-segment IDs, and service-segment IDs are selected, the SR/LDP node can determine the first entry of the segment ID stack is a label if the first entry falls within the range reserved for labels. Ultimately, if the SR/LDP node determines header H contains a label, the label is removed or popped off in step 606. Thereafter, or in response to determining that header H lacks a label, the process proceeds to step 610.
Step 610 is similar to step 304 shown within
If the active segment ID is not a service-segment ID determined in step 614, or if the active segment ID does not equal the SR/LDP node's nodal-segment ID in step 610, the process proceeds to step 622 where the SR/LDP node accesses its SR forwarding table to read the egress interface ID or a node prefix mapped to the active segment ID. In step 624, the SR/LDP node determines whether an egress interface ID or node prefix is mapped to the active segment ID in the SR forwarding table. If the active segment ID is mapped to an egress interface ID, then the SR/LDP node determines in step 626 whether the active segment ID is an adjacency-segment ID or a nodal-segment ID. If the active segment ID is an adjacency-segment ID, the process follows to step 630 and the SR/LDP node increments the active segment pointer before forwarding packet P and attached header H to the next node via the egress interface mapped to the active segment ID in the SR forwarding table as shown in step 632. If it is determined in step 626 that the active segment ID is a nodal-segment ID, then the SR/LDP node proceeds to forward packet P and attached header H without incrementing the pointer as shown in step 632.
If the SR/LDP node determines in step 624 that a node prefix is mapped to the active segment ID, then the process proceeds to step 634 where the SR/LDP node accesses the SR/LDP node's LDP forwarding table to read the label and egress interface ID mapped to the node prefix. The SR/LDP node then adds or pushes that label onto the segment ID stack within header H. Thereafter, the SR/LDP node forwards the packet P and attached header H to the next LDP node via the egress interface identified in step 634, and the process ends.
The processors 750 and 760 of each line card 702 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 700 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 750(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 730 (e.g., others of port processors 650(1,1)-(N,N), forwarding engine 710 and/or processor 720). Handling of the packet or packet and header can be determined, for example, by forwarding engine 710. For example, forwarding engine 710 may determine that the packet or packet and header should be forwarded to one or more of port processors 750(1,1)-(N,N). This can be accomplished by indicating to corresponding one(s) of port processor controllers 760(1)-(N) that the copy of the packet or packet and header held in the given one(s) of port processors 750(1,1)-(N,N) should be forwarded to the appropriate one of port processors 750(1,1)-(N,N). In addition, or alternatively, once a packet or packet and header has been identified for processing, forwarding engine 710, processor 720 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.
Although the present invention has been described in connection with several embodiments, the invention is not intended to be limited to the specific forms set forth herein. On the contrary, it is intended to cover such alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as can be reasonably included within the scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims.
The present patent application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/096,358, filed on Dec. 4, 2013, entitled “Segment Routing Over Label Distribution Protocol” which claims the domestic benefit under Title 35 of the United States Code § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/791,242 entitled “Segment Routing,” filed Mar. 15, 2013. Both are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety and for all purposes as if completely and fully set forth herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5764624 | Endo | Jun 1998 | A |
6032197 | Birdwell et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6147976 | Shand | Nov 2000 | A |
6374303 | Armitage et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6577600 | Bare | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6647428 | Bannai | 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 |
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 et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7940695 | Bahadur et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7983174 | Monaghan et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
8064441 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8339973 | Pichumani | 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 |
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 |
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, Jr. | 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 | 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 |
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 |
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 |
20070053342 | Sierecki | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070058638 | Guichard et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070189291 | Tian | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070245034 | Retana | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080002699 | Rajsic | Jan 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 |
20090041038 | Martini | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049194 | Csaszar et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090067445 | Diguet | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090080431 | Rekhter | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090135815 | Pacella | May 2009 | A1 |
20090196289 | Shankar | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090296710 | Agrawal | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100063983 | Groarke | 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 |
20110060844 | Allan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110063986 | Denecheau | 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 | 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 |
20120170461 | Long | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120179796 | Nagaraj | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120213225 | Subramanian | 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 | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130266013 | Dutta | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130343204 | Geib et al. | Dec 2013 | 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 |
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 |
20150326675 | Kini | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150381406 | Francois | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160006614 | Zhao | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160021000 | Previdi et al. | Jan 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 | Filsfils 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 |
20180083871 | Filsfils | Mar 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1726 679 | Jan 2006 | CN |
101247 253 | Aug 2008 | CN |
101399 688 | Apr 2009 | CN |
101496 357 | Jul 2009 | CN |
101616 466 | Dec 2009 | CN |
101803 293 | Aug 2010 | CN |
101841 442 | Sep 2010 | CN |
101931 548 | Dec 2010 | CN |
102098 222 | Jun 2011 | CN |
102132 533 | Jul 2011 | CN |
102299 852 | Dec 2011 | CN |
102498 694 | Jun 2012 | CN |
102714 625 | Oct 2012 | CN |
Entry |
---|
Psenak, Peter et al., “Enforcing Strict Shortest Path Forwarding Using Strict Segment Identifiers”; U.S. Appl. No. 15/165,794, filed May 26, 2016; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (52 pages). |
Nainar, Nagendra Kumar et al., “Reroute Detection in Setment Routing Data Plane”; U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,498, filed Sep. 15, 2016; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (61 pages). |
Frost, Daniel C. et al., “MPLS Segment Routing”; U.S. Appl. No. 15/637,744, filed Jun. 29, 2017; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (26 pages). |
Filsfils, Clarence et al., “Seamless Segment Routing”; U.S. Appl. No. 15/639,398, filed Jun. 30, 2017; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (31 pages). |
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-PCE-Protection-00,” Network Working Group, Internet-Draft, Oct. 2012, 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 Enginering (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 Sytems, 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 Enginering (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 Dataplan;,” 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 13, “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. |
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, Stefano B. et al., “Segment Routing Extension Headers”, U.S. Appl. No. 15/677,210, filed Aug. 15, 2017; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (58 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20170104673 A1 | Apr 2017 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61791242 | Mar 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14096358 | Dec 2013 | US |
Child | 15388938 | US |