Network nodes forward packets using forwarding tables. 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: 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.
Packet forwarding requires a decision process that, while simple in concept, can be complex. Since packet forwarding decisions are handled by network nodes, the total time required for this can become a major limiting factor in overall network performance.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is one packet forwarding mechanism. MPLS Nodes make packet forwarding decisions based on Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) distributed labels attached to packets and LDP forwarding tables. LDP is a process in which network nodes capable of MPLS exchange LDP labels (hereinafter labels). Packet forwarding based on labels stands in stark contrast to traditional Internet Protocol (IP) routing in which packet forwarding decisions are made by nodes using IP addresses contained within the packet.
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.
1. Overview
An apparatus and method is disclosed for path-creation element driven dynamic setup of forwarding adjacencies and explicit path. In one embodiment of the method, a node receives an instruction to create a tunnel between the node and another node. The node creates or initiates the creation of the tunnel in response to receiving the instruction, wherein the tunnel comprises a plurality of nodes in data communication between the node and the other node. The node maps a first identifier (ID) to information relating to the tunnel. The node advertises the first ID to other nodes in a network of nodes.
2. Packet Forwarding Mechanisms
IP routing and 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 attached to packets. Segment routing (SR) is yet another packet forwarding mechanism and can be seen as a modification of MPLS. SR is similar to MPLS in many regards and employs many of the data plane functions thereof. For example, like MPLS packet forwarding decisions in SR can be based on short path identifiers called segment IDs attached to packets. While similarities exist between MPLS and SR, substantial differences exist between SR and traditional MPLS as will be more fully described below.
2.1 IP Packet Routing
IP packet 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 packet's destination IP address and lookup a corresponding egress interface to 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 in the packet, and so on.
2.2 MPLS and LDP
MPLS is commonly employed in provider networks consisting of interconnected LDP nodes. For the purposes of explanation, LDP nodes take form in MPLS enabled nodes that also implement LDP in the control plane. Packets enter an MPLS network via an ingress edge LDP node, travel hop-by-hop along a label-switched path (LSP) that typically includes one or more core LDP nodes, and exit via an egress edge LDP 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 planes 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 such things as 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. For purpose of explanation, LDP nodes are those nodes that employ only LDP in their control plane. Two LDP nodes, called LDP peers, can bi-directionally exchange labels on a FEC by FEC basis when setting up an LSP. Some LSPs can be set up using resource reservation protocol (RSVP) tunnel engineering. 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 LDP node of an MPLS network, the ingress node may use information in the packet to determine a FEC corresponding to an LSP the packet should take across the network to reach the packet's destination. In one embodiment, the FEC is an identifier of the egress edge node that is closest to the packet's destination IP address. In this embodiment, the FEC may take form in the egress edge node's loopback address.
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 LDP 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 LDP node forwards the packet to the next hop via, the ingress node attaches the label.
When an LDP 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 LDP 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 (i.e., the LSP). The penultimate node in the LSP may pop or remove the incoming label before forwarding the packet to an egress edge LDP 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. In another embodiment, the last node in the LSP may pop the incoming label before forwarding the packet using the destination address and an IP forwarding table.
To illustrate MPLS aspects,
2.3 Segment Routing
Segment routing (SR) is a mechanism in which nodes forward packets using SR forwarding tables and segment IDs. This forwarding mechanism can use the data plane of MPLS with slight modifications as will be more fully described below. As such, the forwarding engines in the data planes of SR nodes are very similar to the forwarding engines in the data planes of SR nodes 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 but not LDP) make packet forwarding decisions based on segment IDs as opposed to LDP distributed labels, and as a result SR nodes need not employ LDP in their control planes. In one embodiment, segment IDs are substantially shorter than labels. The range for segment IDs may be distinct from the range for labels. Unless otherwise indicated, the SR nodes lack LDP in their control plane.
Packets can enter an SR enabled network via an ingress edge SR node, travel hop-by-hop along a segment path (SP) that includes one or more core SR nodes, and exit the network via an egress edge SR node.
Like labels, segment IDs are short (relative to the length of an IP address or a FEC), fixed-length identifiers. In one embodiment, segment IDs are shorter than labels. 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, including sub paths called SR tunnels that are more fully described below. 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, forwarding adjacency (FA)-segment IDs, etc. Nodal-segment IDs are assigned to SR nodes so 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 node identifiers such as node loopback IP addresses (hereinafter 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 the 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.
A forwarding adjacency (FA)-segment ID represents an SR tunnel or an MPLS traffic engineering (TE) tunnel between a pair of nodes referred to as the head end and tail end nodes. Head end and/or tail end nodes can create an SR tunnel or a TE tunnel under direction of a path computation (PC) node. The head end and tail end nodes may be SR enabled or both SR and LDP (SR/LDP) enabled as will be more fully described below. Tunnels enable PC nodes to optimize operation of a network.
The SR tunnel constitutes several SR nodes that create a path between the SR head end and tail end nodes. In this regard, the FA-segment ID may correspond to a stack of nodal-segment IDs of the respective SR nodes constituting the path between SR head end and tail end nodes. The FA-segment ID may also correspond to a TE tunnel between SR/LDP head end and tail end nodes. In this latter embodiment, the head end and tail end nodes are both SR and LDP enabled, while the intervening nodes are LDP enabled. All FA-segment IDs are selected from a predefined range of IDs that are outside the ranges for the nodal-segment IDs and adjacency-segment IDs.
SR or SR/LDP nodes can advertise routing information including nodal-segment IDs bound to loopbacks, adjacency-segment IDs mapped to link IDs, FA-segment IDs bound to loopbacks of nodes constituting the SR or TE tunnel, etc., using protocols such as IGP and/or BGP with an appropriate SR extension. Nodes, including path computation (PC) nodes, may use the routing information they receive in order to create topology maps of the network. SR forwarding tables can be created or updated through use of these maps. To illustrate, a node can use the map it creates to identify next hop egress interfaces for shortest paths (SPTs) to respective node loopbacks. The identified SPT or next hop egress interfaces for the loopbacks are then mapped to respective nodal-segment IDs in the forwarding table.
SR 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 a SR forwarding table that maps the adjacency-segment ID to an egress interface.
FA-segment IDs are also locally significant. As a result FA-segment IDs should only be mapped in SR nodes or SR/LDP nodes that advertise the FA-segment IDs. FA-segment IDs are not mapped to egress interfaces. Rather, FA-segment IDs can be mapped in SR nodes to stacks of segment IDs, which in turn correspond to SR nodes and/or links constituting respective SR tunnels. Alternatively, the FA-segment IDs can be mapped to labels in SR/LDP nodes, which in turn correspond to respective TE tunnels.
As noted above, SR enables segment paths (SPs), including SR tunnels, through a network. SPs can be associated with FECs. Packets associated with the same FEC normally traverse the same SP to reach 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.
As noted above, nodes, including PC nodes, can use advertised routing information to create topological maps, and these maps can be used to create SPs including SR tunnels. The nodes can also use advertised routing information such as nodal-segment IDs bound to loopbacks, adjacency-segment IDs mapped to link IDs, FA-segment IDs bound to SR tunnels or TE tunnels, etc., to generate ordered lists of segment IDs (i.e., segment ID stacks) for the paths or tunnels. Individual segment IDs in a stack may correspond to respective segments or sub paths, including SR tunnels or TE tunnels, of a corresponding path.
When an ingress edge SR node receives a packet, the node or a PC node in data communication with the node, can select a segment path (SP) for the packet based on information contained in the packet. In one embodiment, a FEC may be determined for the packet using the packet's destination IP address. Like MPLS, this FEC may take form in an identifier (e.g., loopback) of an egress edge node through which the packet's destination can be reached. The FEC can then be used to select a segment ID stack mapped thereto. The ingress edge node can attach the selected segment ID stack to the packet via a header. The packet with attached segment ID stack is forwarded along and traverses the segments of the SP in an order that corresponds to the list order of the segment IDs in the stack. A forwarding engine operating in the data plane of each SR or SR/LDP node can use the top segment ID within the stack to lookup the egress interface for 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 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 to an active segment ID in the stack can be advanced as the packet is forwarded along the SP. In contrast to MPLS that uses labels to forward packets, nodal-segment IDs and adjacency-segment IDs are not swapped as the packet and attached segment ID stack are forwarded along the SP. An SR node that advertises an FA-segment ID, however, may swap the FA-segment ID with a stack of segment IDs mapped thereto, or an SR/LDP node that advertises an FA-segment ID may swap the FA-segment ID for a label mapped thereto.
To illustrate general concepts of SR,
One or more nodes 204-222 can also assign locally significant adjacency-segment IDs and FA-segment IDs. For example, node 208 can assign adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 to links CB, CD, and CO, respectively. Node 206 can assign FA-segment ID 5500 to an SR tunnel constituting nodes 206, 208, 216, and 218. Nodes 204-222 and PC nodes 224 and 226 collect all information needed for topology creation via IGP and/or BGP. PC nodes 224 and 226 also collect additional information relevant to the state and performance of the network.
Each SR node can advertise routing and performance information to the other nodes in a network, including PC nodes, using IGP and/or BGP with SR extension. For example, node 208 can generate and send one or more advertisements that include adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 bound to link IDs CB, CD, and CO, respectively, and nodal-segment ID 66 bound to loopback C. Node 206 may generate an advertisement that includes FA-segment ID 5500 bound to a list of loopbacks B, C, O, and P, which in turn represent the nodes in an SR tunnel or a TE tunnel.
Using the advertisements they receive, the control planes of nodes 204-222 can generate respective SR forwarding tables for use in the data planes. For example, node 208 can generate example SR forwarding table 240 that 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 interfaces 1, 1, 2, 3, and 2, respectively, which are the SPT next hop egress interfaces determined by node 208 for loopbacks A, B, D, O, and Z respectively. In the embodiment shown, only SR forwarding table 240 maps adjacency-segment IDs 9001-9003 to interfaces; 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, SR nodes, SR/LDP or PC nodes 224 and 226 can create segment ID stacks for respective SPs including SR tunnels. For example, ingress edge node 204 or PC node 226 on request can create example segment ID stack 228 for an SP between ingress edge node 204 and egress edge node 222. Example segment stack 228 can be created for a particular FEC (e.g., FEC Z). Example stack 228 includes three segment IDs: nodal-segment IDs 66 and 72 advertised by nodes 208 and 222, respectively, and adjacency-segment ID 9003 advertised by node 208. Stack 228 corresponds to an SP in which packets flow in order through nodes 204, 206, 208, 216, 218, and 222. Node 206 can use loopback/nodal-segment ID bindings to create a tunnel segment ID stack consisting of nodal-segment IDs consisting of 66, 70, and 71. After creation, node 206 maps the tunnel segment ID stack to FA-segment ID 5500. No other node should map this tunnel segment ID stack to FA-segment ID 5500. Tunnel segment ID stack 66, 70, and 71 corresponds to a tunnel in which packets flow in order through nodes 206, 208, 216, and 218.
To illustrate basic SR consider SR node 204 receiving a packet P that is destined for a device that can be reached via AE2, which in turn can be reached via node 222. In response SR node 204 can select a segment ID stack based on information contained in the packet. For example, node 204 can select FEC Z (i.e., the loopback for node 222) for a received packet P based on the destination IP address in packet P and/or other information. FEC Z is mapped to example stack 228 in a table not shown. Node 204 attaches stack 228 to packet P. Example segment stack 228 lists segment IDs that correspond to one hop and multi hop segments that packets traverse to reach egress edge node 222. The one hop and multi hop segments collectively form the SP corresponding to stack 228. Once the segment stack 228 is attached to packet P, ingress SR enable node 204 may access a SR forwarding table (not shown) using the top segment ID (e.g., segment ID=66) of the stack to read egress interface identifier 2, which is the next hop egress interface for the SPT to the SR node assigned nodal-segment ID 66.
With continuing reference to
With continuing reference to
3. Segment Routing Using SR Tunnels
SR networks, such as the network shown in
Nodes including PC nodes 224 and 226 receive the FA-segment ID advertisements. The nodes can use information from the FA-segment ID advertisements to create SP paths and corresponding segment ID stacks. To illustrate, edge node 212 may lack a segment ID stack for a particular FEC. Node 212 can generate and send to PC node 224 a path request that identifies the egress node it is trying to reach in addition to other information. PC node 224, using the information in the request as well as network state and performance information, responds by calculating a path that flows in order through nodes 214, 206, 208, 216, and 218. In the illustrated example, an SR tunnel preexists through nodes 206, 208, 216 and 218 as advertised by node 206. Node 212 receives the response from PC node 224 and calculates a segment ID stack for the SP. Or PC node 224 can respond to the request by also calculating the segment ID stack for the path. Either way, the segment ID stack includes FA-segment ID 5500, as opposed to a segment ID stack that includes all nodal-segment IDs for the nodes in the needed SP. In an alternative embodiment, PC node 224 can calculate the needed path and the corresponding segment ID stack without involvement of a PC node. When node 212 receives packets associated with the FEC, node 212 can attach the calculated segment ID stack.
Nodes within the SP can use the segment IDs, including FA-segment IDs, to forward the packet.
4. Segment Routing Using TE Tunnels
All SR and SR/LDP nodes are assigned unique nodal-segment IDs. For example, nodes 214, 206, 218, and 222 are assigned nodal-segment IDs 69, 65, 71, and 72, respectively. LDP nodes 208 and 216 are not assigned nodal-segment IDs. Each of the nodes 204-226 is assigned a unique loopback. Loopbacks A-D are assigned to nodes 204-210, respectively, loopbacks M-P are assigned to nodes 212-218 respectively, loopback R is assigned to PC node 224, loopback S is assigned to node 226, and loopback Z is assigned to node 222. These loopbacks are unique in the network and usable to calculate network topology, which in turn can be used to create paths or tunnels, to identify SPTs and next hop egress interfaces for SR forwarding tables, calculate segment ID stacks, etc.
As noted above SR/LDP nodes can create TE tunnels in response to receiving tunnel creation instructions from PC nodes. To illustrate, SR/LDP node 206 may receive an instruction from PC node 226 to create a TE tunnel constituting, in explicit order, nodes 206, 208, 216 and 218. The instruction may define the tunnel in terms of the loopbacks for the nodes constituting the tunnel. Nodes 206, 208, 216 and 218 can employ RSVP-TE messaging to create the tunnel. In this process the nodes may exchange labels. For example, SR/LDP node 206 receives label L1 from LDP node 208, and LDP node 208 receives label L2 from LDP node 216. The labels and egress interfaces are mapped appropriately in LDP forwarding tables. Node 206 generates FA-segment ID 5500 for the example tunnel. Once generated, the head end SR/LDP node 206 can map FA-segment ID 5500 to label L1 in memory. No other node should map label L1 to FA-segment ID 5500. This mapping links label L1 to the TE tunnel in which packets flow in order through nodes 206, 208, 216, and 218.
Each SR and SR/LDP node can advertise routing and performance information to the other nodes in a network, including PC nodes, using IGP and/or BGP with SR extension. For example, node 206 may generate an advertisement that includes FA-segment ID 5500 bound to a list of loopbacks B, C, O, and P for the example TE-tunnel. Edge nodes and/or PC nodes can use the FA-segment ID advertisements to create SPs and corresponding segment ID stacks in much the same manner as described above. For example edge node 212 may lack a segment ID stack for a particular FEC. Node 212 can generate and send to PC node 224 a path request that identifies the egress node for the FEC it is trying to reach in addition to other information. PC node 224, using the information in the request as well as network state and performance information, responds by calculating a path that flows in order through nodes 214, 206, 208, 216, and 218. In the illustrated example, the TE tunnel preexists through nodes 206, 208, 216 and 218 as advertised by node 206, which in turn can be leveraged for more efficient network operation. Node 212 receives the response from PC node 224 and calculates a segment ID stack for the needed SP. Or PC node 224 can respond to the request by also calculating the segment ID stack for the needed SP. Either way, the segment ID stack includes FA-segment ID 5500. In an alternative embodiment, PC node 224 can calculate the needed path and the corresponding segment ID stack without involvement of a PC node. When node 212 receives packets associated with the FEC, node 212 can attach the calculated segment ID stack.
The processors 850 and 860 of each line card 802 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 800 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 850(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 830 (e.g., others of port processors 650(1,1)-(N,N), forwarding engine 810 and/or processor 820). Handling of the packet or packet and header can be determined, for example, by forwarding engine 810. For example, forwarding engine 810 may determine that the packet or packet and header should be forwarded to one or more of port processors 850(1,1)-(N,N). This can be accomplished by indicating to corresponding one(s) of port processor controllers 860(1)-(N) that the copy of the packet or packet and header held in the given one(s) of port processors 850(1,1)-(N,N) should be forwarded to the appropriate one of port processors 850(1,1)-(N,N). In addition, or alternatively, once a packet or packet and header has been identified for processing, forwarding engine 810, processor 820 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.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/394,169, entitled “Segment Routing: PCE Driven Dynamic Setup of Forwarding Adjacencies and Explicit Path,” filed Dec. 29, 2016; which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/211,101, entitled “Segment Routing: PCE Driven Dynamic Setup of Forwarding Adjacencies and Explicit Path,” filed Mar. 14, 2014, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,571,349 and issued on Feb. 14, 2017; which claims the domestic benefit under Title 35 of the United States Code § 119(e) of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/791,242, entitled “Segment Routing,” filed Mar. 15, 2013. 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 |
6882627 | Pieda et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6904462 | Sinha | Jun 2005 | 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 |
7035209 | Dang et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7061921 | Sheth | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7068654 | Joseph et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7072346 | Hama | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7088721 | Droz et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7099286 | Swallow | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7154416 | Savage | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7174387 | Shand et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7180887 | Schwaderer | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7209975 | Zang et al. | Apr 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 | Iiavala et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7457237 | Zetterlund et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7462639 | Georges et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7463639 | Rekhter | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7466661 | Previdi et al. | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7471669 | Sabesan | Dec 2008 | B1 |
7489866 | Ozugur et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7551550 | Sinha | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7564803 | Minei et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7568047 | Aysan | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7577143 | Kompella | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7593340 | Li et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7602778 | Guichard et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7610330 | Quinn | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7627243 | Sadananda | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7697455 | Sadanada | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7773630 | Huang et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7817667 | Frederiksen et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7885179 | Bryant et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
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 et al. | Feb 2012 | B1 |
8131126 | Moisand | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8339973 | Pichumani | Dec 2012 | B1 |
8345682 | Pignataro et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8422514 | Kothari et al. | Apr 2013 | B1 |
8542706 | Wang et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8542709 | Kim et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8611335 | Wu | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8619817 | Everson | Dec 2013 | B1 |
8630167 | Ashwood Smith | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8630176 | Shaheen et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8711883 | Kang | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8743679 | Gerstel et al. | Jun 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 |
9288110 | Liu | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9319312 | Filsfils et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9485150 | Filsfils et al. | Nov 2016 | B2 |
9571349 | Previdi | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9596169 | Choudhury | Mar 2017 | B2 |
9660897 | Gredler | May 2017 | B1 |
9667550 | Gredler et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9749227 | Frost et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9794148 | Ramachandran et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9923798 | Bahadur | Mar 2018 | B1 |
10469325 | Previdi | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10805204 | Morris | Oct 2020 | B1 |
10880203 | Naimar | Dec 2020 | B2 |
20010037401 | Soumiya | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010055311 | Trachewsky | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020059432 | Masuda et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020103732 | Bundy et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020131424 | Suemura | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020191545 | Pieda et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030016678 | Maeno | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030026271 | Erb et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030043747 | Edwin et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030043798 | Pugel | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030126272 | Corl et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131130 | Malkosh | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030133412 | Iyer | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030142674 | Casey | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030142685 | Bare | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030147352 | Ishibashi et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030154110 | Walter et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030174644 | Yagyu | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030231634 | Henderson | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040160958 | Oh | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040165537 | Lee et al. | 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 |
20040202171 | Hama | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205237 | Doshi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205239 | Doshi et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040218612 | Zetterlund et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040218923 | Ozugur et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040240442 | Grimminger | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021803 | Wren, III | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050073958 | Atlas | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050088965 | Atlas et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050105515 | Reed | May 2005 | A1 |
20050157724 | Montuno | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050198304 | Oliver et al. | Sep 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 |
20060004916 | Caviglia et al. | 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 |
20060114818 | Canali et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060126272 | Horio et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060140111 | Vasseur et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060140190 | Lee | 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 et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070053342 | Siereki | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070058607 | Mack-Crane et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070058638 | Guichard et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070189291 | Tian | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070245034 | Retana | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080002664 | Li et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080002699 | Rajsic | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080010227 | Matichuk | 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 |
20090003349 | Havemann | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090003364 | Fendick | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090041038 | Martini et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049194 | Csaszar | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090067348 | Vasseur et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090067445 | Diguet | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090080431 | Rekhter | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090086644 | Kompella et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090103442 | Douville | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090135815 | Pacella | May 2009 | A1 |
20090141721 | Filsfils | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090196289 | Shankar | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090217318 | Versteeg et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090247157 | Yoon | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090296710 | Agrawal | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100061720 | Fiaschi | Mar 2010 | 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 |
20100302935 | Zhang et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20100329153 | Xu | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110021193 | Hong | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110060844 | Allan et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110063986 | Denechaeu | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110080827 | Zetterlund et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110087784 | Liu | Apr 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 |
20110273980 | Ashwood Smith | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110280123 | Wijnands et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110280580 | Wexler | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110286452 | Balus | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120014690 | Gruber et al. | Jan 2012 | 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 |
20120185229 | Perrett | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120213225 | Subramanian et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120218884 | Kini | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120224506 | Gredler et al. | Sep 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 |
20120307644 | Gandhi et al. | 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 |
20160119229 | Zhou | 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 | Pscnak 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 |
20180131532 | Wijnands et al. | May 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 |
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 |
2011032430 | Mar 2011 | WO |
2014188638 | Nov 2014 | WO |
2016095710 | Jun 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Psenak, Peter et al., “Enforcing Strict Shortest Path Forwarding Using Strict Segment Identifier”; U.S. Appl. No. 16/943,541, filed Jul. 30, 2020 consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (50 pages). |
Bashandy, Ahmed et al., “Segment Router Over Label Distribution Protocol”; U.S. Appl. No. 16/997,129, filed Aug. 19, 2020; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (38 pages). |
Eckert, Toerless et al., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Indexed Explicit Replication”; U.S. Appl. No. 16/457,339, filed Jun. 28, 2019; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (88 pages). |
Previdi, Stefano et al., “Segment Routing Extension Headers”; U.S. Appl. No. 16/525,000, filed Jul. 29, 2019; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (57 pages). |
Psenak, Peter et al., “Enforcing Strict Shortest Path Forwarding Using Strict Segment Identifier”; U.S. Appl. No. 16/384,219, filed Apr. 15, 2019; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (48 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-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, II., 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 Multiprotocol 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 Svstems, Inc., “BGP/MPLS VPNs”, Network Working Group, Request for Comments: 2547; Mar. 1999, pp. 1-26. |
Rosen, E. et al., Cisco Svstems, 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, Stefano et al., “Segment Routing Extension Headers”; U.S. Appl. No. 17/387,114, filed Jul. 28, 2021; consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings (59 pages). |
Bashandy A.R., et al., “Segment Routing Over Label Distribution Protocol,” U.S. Appl. No. 16/367,869, filed Mar. 28, 2019, 37 pages. |
Bocci M., et al., “MPLS Generic Associated Channel,” Network Working Group, RFC 5586, The Internet Society, Reston, VA, USA, Jun. 2009, 19 pages. |
Bryant S.F., et al., “Opportunistic Compression of Routing Segment Identifier Stacks,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/449,632, filed Aug. 1, 2014, Consisting of Specification, Claims and Abstract and Drawings, 59 Pages. |
Eckert T., et al., “Failure Protection for Traffic-Engineered Bit Indexed Explicit Replication,” U.S. Appl. No. 15/054,480, filed Feb. 26, 2016, consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract and Drawings, 76 pages. |
Eckert T., et al., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/814,574, filed Jul. 31, 2015, consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract and Drawings, 25 pages. |
Eckert T., et al., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/862,915, filed Sep. 23, 2015, consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings, 93 pages. |
Eckert T., et al., “Traffic Engineering for Bit Indexed Explicit Replication,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/814,575, filed Jul. 31, 2015, consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract and Drawings, 93 Pages. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 19206362.6, dated Jan. 21, 2020, 9 Pages. |
Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 21178606.6, dated Aug. 24, 2021, 9 Pages. |
Filsfils C., 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. |
Filsfils C., et al., “Segment Routing Into a Label Distribution Protocol Domain,” U.S. Appl. No. 15/280,262, filed Sep. 29, 2016, consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings, 28 pages. |
Francois P.J.R., et al., “Loop Avoidance During Network Convergence in Switched Networks,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/319,353, filed Jun. 30, 2014, Consisting of Specification, Claims and Abstract (29 Pages), and Drawings (6 Sheets). |
Frost D.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. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2013/063516, dated Apr. 16, 2015, 9 Pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2013/063603, dated Apr. 16, 2015, 10 Pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/018226, dated Sep. 24, 2015, 9 Pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/027934, dated Sep. 24, 2015, 8 Pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028526, dated Sep. 24, 2015, 8 Pages. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028709, dated Sep. 24, 2015, 8 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2013/063516, dated Dec. 3, 2013, 11 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2013/063603, dated Dec. 17, 2013, 12 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/018226, dated Jul. 8, 2014, 10 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/027934, dated Jun. 2, 2014, 11 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028526, dated Jun. 3, 2014, 10 Pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2014/028709, dated May 30, 2014, 11 Pages. |
Kompella K., Ed. et al., “Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS),” Network Working Group, Copyright © The Internet Society, Oct. 2005, pp. 1-28. |
Kompella K., et al., “The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding,” Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Request for Comments 6790, Level 3 Communications, Inc., Nov. 2012, pp. 1-25. |
Marco T., et al., “Local Detection and Recovery from Multi-Failure Patterns in MPLS-TE Networks,” IEEE International Conference on Communications, Jun. 11-15, 2006, pp. 658-663. |
Nainar N.K., et al., “Reroute Detection in Segment Routing Data Plane,” U.S. Appl. No. 15/266,498, filed Sep. 15, 2016, Consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract, and Drawings, pp. 1-61. |
Papadimitriou D., et al., “Inference of Shared Risk Link Groups,” draft-many-inference-srlg-02.txt, Internet Working Group, Internet Draft, Nov. 2001, pp. 1-18. |
Previdi S., et al., “Segment Routing Extension Headers,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/212,084, filed Mar. 14, 2014, Consisting of Specification, Claims and Abstract and Drawings, 60 pages. |
Previdi S.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. |
Previdi S.B., et al., “Segment Routing Using a Remote Forwarding Adjacency Identifier,” U.S. Appl. No. 14/334,300, filed Jul. 17, 2014, Consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract and Drawings, 31 pages. |
Psenak P., 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. |
Wijnands I., et al., “Area-Specific Broadcasting Using Bit Indexed Explicit Replication,” U.S. Appl. No. 15/347,443, filed Nov. 9, 2016, Consisting of Specification, Claims, Abstract and Drawings, 65 Pages. |
Wikipedia, “Shared Risk Resource Group,” May 17, 2018, pp. 1-5, URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Risk_Resource_Group. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200044936 A1 | Feb 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61791242 | Mar 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 15394169 | Dec 2016 | US |
Child | 16599975 | US | |
Parent | 14211101 | Mar 2014 | US |
Child | 15394169 | US |