This disclosure relates generally to round trip time (RTT) measurements for a network. More particularly but not exclusively, the present disclosure relates to techniques to effectively smooth RTT measurements, which are usable for RTT metrics for a variety of network applications.
Under the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), when a client provides a symbolic name (a Uniform Resource Locator or URL) to request access to an application program or another type of resource, the host name portion of the URL needs to be resolved into an IP address of a server for that application program or resource. For example, the URL (e.g., http://www.foundrynet.com/index.htm) includes a host name portion www.foundrynet.com that needs to be resolved into an IP address. The client first provides the host name portion to a local name resolver, which then queries a local Domain Name System (DNS) server to obtain a corresponding IP address. If a corresponding IP address is not locally cached at the time of the query, or if the time-to-live (TTL) of a corresponding IP address cached locally has expired, the DNS server then acts as a resolver and dispatches a recursive query to another DNS server. This process is repeated until an authoritative DNS server for the domain (e.g., foundrynet.com, in this example) is reached. The authoritative DNS server returns one or more IP addresses, each corresponding to an address at which a server hosting the application (“host server”) under the host name can be reached. These IP addresses are propagated back via the local DNS server to the original resolver. The application at the client then uses one of the IP addresses to establish a TCP connection with the corresponding host server. Each DNS server caches the list of IP addresses received from the authoritative DNS server for responding to future queries regarding the same host name, until the TTL of the IP addresses expires.
To provide some load sharing among the host servers, global server load balancing (GSLB) switches are sometimes used as proxies for authoritative DNS servers, together with one or more site switches each associated with one or more host servers. Each site switch provides the GSLB switch with current site-specific information (“metrics”) regarding access conditions to the host servers associated with the site switches. The GSLB switch then processes the addresses returned by the DNS server using the metrics compiled from the site switches and provides an ordered address list having the optimum address for access listed at the top. An example of a GSLB system and description of associated metrics are disclosed in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/376,903, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Feb. 28, 2003, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
There are other examples of server load balancing systems and techniques, apart from those that use GSLB. At least some of these GSLB and/or other load balancing systems use round trip time (RTT) measurements in determining an optimum address to provide to a client. For a GSLB system, the site switches gather RTT and report these measurements to the GSLB switch. The GSLB switch maintains a database for these RTT measurements. In particular, each entry in this database includes the following information:
Whenever a site switch reports a new RTT value for a network prefix, this value is smoothed into the existing RTT value in the RTT database. Generally, the most common smoothing algorithm used is to compute the effective RTT value as a sum of 90% of the existing RTT value and 10% of the new RTT value, for example. This algorithm is very simplistic in nature and not able to adapt quickly to large variances in RTT values or changes in RTT measurements. Further, it does not provide flexibility to customize the RTT smoothing based on the RTT characteristics of different networks.
One aspect provides a method that includes defining a maximum deviation allowed for any round trip time (RTT) sample relative to a current RTT value. The method computes a deviation of a RTT sample relative to the current RTT value. If the computed deviation is greater than zero and an absolute value of the computed deviation is greater than the maximum deviation allowed, then the method performs a first type of RTT smoothing operation wherein the RTT sample is factored into the current RTT value using an additive increase. If the computed deviation is less than zero and greater than the maximum deviation allowed, then the method performs a second type of RTT smoothing operation wherein the RTT sample is factored into the current RTT value using a multiplicative decrease. Otherwise, the method performs a third type of RTT smoothing operation wherein a percentage of the RTT sample is factored into a percentage of the current RTT value.
Non-limiting and non-exhaustive embodiments are described with reference to the following figures, wherein like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the various views unless otherwise specified.
Embodiments of techniques to provide a smoothing algorithm for RTT measurements are described herein. In the following description, numerous specific details are given to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize, however, that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, materials, etc. In other instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects.
Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment” or “an embodiment” means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment. Thus, the appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment” or “in an embodiment” in various places throughout this specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment. Furthermore, the particular features, structures, or characteristics may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments.
For purposes of simplicity of explanation and illustration, an embodiment will be described in the context of a smoothing algorithm for RTT measurements that can be used in a GSLB system. However, alternatively or additionally to GSLB systems, it is understood that embodiments can also be applied to smooth RTT samples for other types of load balancing systems or other applications where an adaptive RTT smoothing algorithm can provide some benefit.
As an overview, one embodiment provides a smoothing algorithm for RTT measurements to effectively deal with variances that may occur in RTT measurements. The algorithm of an embodiment involves: first determining what should be considered a very high or a very small value for a RTT sample by a GSLB switch. If a new RTT sample is in an acceptable range, then the GSLB switch will perform a relatively basic smoothing. If the new RTT sample is much higher than a current RTT value, then the GSLB switch will ignore the value of this RTT sample a few times. If the GSLB switch still detects this large value after ignoring that value for some time, then the GSLB switch will factor this value into the current RTT value (e.g., the GSLB switch will add the value of the new RTT sample into the current RTT value in an additive increase). Similarly, if the value of the new RTT sample is much lower than current RTT value, the GSLB switch will ignore the value of the new RTT sample a few times. If the GSLB switch still sees this small/low value after ignoring that value for sometime, then the GSLB switch will factor this value into the current RTT value using a multiplicative decrease.
A suitable switch for implementing either the GSLB switch 12 or any of the site switches 18A, 18B, 22A and 22B is the ServerIron® (SI) product available from Foundry Networks, Inc. of San Jose, Calif. Throughout this description and in the figures, the GSLB switch will be described as the network device that can provide and implement the various load balancing (e.g., host-level and/or global load balancing policies) of an embodiment. It is understood that this use of the GSLB or SI switch is merely for purposes of illustration and explanation. Any suitable non-SI switch or non-SI network device can be used to implement the various geographic features and functions described herein. A router is one example.
Unlike the prior art, however, this list of IP addresses is ordered by the GSLB switch 12 based on performance metrics. The GSLB switch 12 of one embodiment can use at least some of the following metrics to evaluate the server IP addresses in a DNS reply:
With respect to the order of application of these metrics in one example embodiment of a GSLB policy or algorithm, the RTT metric is applied subsequent to the active bindings metric, and before the geographic metric. However, it is understood that the RTT metric of another embodiment may be applied as a single metric in a load balancing algorithm, or in any suitable location in a metric order involving a plurality of metrics.
The specifics of at least some of the above-listed metrics are described in further detail in U.S. application Ser. No. 09/670,487, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Sep. 26, 2000; in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/206,580, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Jul. 25, 2002 (disclosing embodiments of a connection-load metric for GSLB); in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/305,823, entitled “DISTRIBUTED HEALTH CHECK FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Nov. 27, 2002 (disclosing embodiments for distributing health check tasks to peer metric agents); and in U.S. application Ser. No. 10/376,903, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Feb. 28, 2003 (disclosing embodiments of weighted site, weighted IP, and active bindings metrics).
Other applications that disclose GSLB features (including metrics) are U.S. application Ser. No. 09/670,487, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Sep. 26, 2000; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/211,822, entitled “STATISTICAL TRACKING FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed Aug. 1, 2002; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/377,364, entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM TO CLEAR COUNTERS USED FOR STATISTICAL TRACKING FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING, filed Feb. 28, 2003; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/214,921, entitled “CANONICAL NAME (CNAME) HANDLING FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING, filed Aug. 7, 2002; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/674,627, entitled “GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE VIP ADDRESSES, filed Sep. 29, 2003; U.S. application Ser. No. 10/840,496, entitled “CONFIGURABLE GEOGRAPHIC PREFIXES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed May 6, 2004; and U.S. application Ser. No. 10/839,919, entitled “HOST-LEVEL POLICIES FOR GLOBAL SERVER LOAD BALANCING,” filed May 6, 2004; all of which are assigned to the same assignee as the present application and incorporated herein by reference in their entireties. For the sake of brevity, these various metrics (other than the RTT metric) and the manner in which they are used in a GSLB algorithm policy (whether at the host level or at the global level) to identify best sites in a list of IP addresses are only summarized and not described in detail herein. Such additional details may be found in these co-pending applications and in the applications that they reference.
In the remainder of this detailed description, for the purpose of illustrating embodiments only and except where indicated, the list of IP addresses returned are assumed to be the virtual IP addresses configured on the proxy servers at switches 18A, 18B, 22A and 22B (sites 20 and 24). In one embodiment when the authoritative DNS server 16 resolves a host name in a query and returns one or more IP addresses, the GSLB switch 12 determines (using the performance metrics) which site switch would provide the best expected performance (e.g., response time) for the client program 28 and returns the IP address list with a virtual IP address configured at that site switch placed at the top. (Other forms of ranking or weighting the IP addresses in the list can also be possible.) The client program 28 can receive the ordered list of IP addresses, and typically selects the first IP address on the list to access the corresponding host server.
With regards to the RTT metric used by some types of GSLB implementations, a GSLB switch learns the RTT information from site switches through any suitable GSLB protocol (or other communication) and uses the information as a metric when comparing IP addresses. The GSLB switch maintains a RTT database cache to store these measurements. That GSLB switch creates a new cache entry to store the RTT measurements reported by the site switches, if a cache entry does not exist already. If a cache entry has already been created, then the GSLB switch updates the RTT value, reported by the site switch, in the existing cache entry. The GSLB switch of such an implementation calculates the new RTT value as follows: the GSLB switch adds 90% of the existing RTT value in the cache entry and 10% of the new RTT sample to obtain the effective RTT value for that cache entry. However, this smoothing algorithm may not be effective in dealing with variances in RTT measurements. For example, consider a situation where the existing RTT value is 20 ms and the new RTT sample is 1 second. Then, the effective RTT value will be 90% of 20 ms and 10% of 1 second (i.e., 118 ms). If this new RTT sample was an anomaly and the subsequent RTT samples are all in the range of 20 ms, then this smoothing mechanism will (inefficiently) take some time to ramp down to 20 ms again.
Accordingly, an embodiment provides a new RTT smoothing algorithm described above. Such an embodiment of the new RTT smoothing algorithm can be implemented in the GSLB system of
In one embodiment, the RTT is computed for the interval between the time when the client program 28 requests a TCP connection to a proxy server configured on a site switch (e.g., the site switch 18A), sending the proxy server a TCP SYN packet, and the time a site switch receives from the client program 28 a TCP ACK packet. That is, in response to the TCP SYN packet, a host server sends a TCP SYN ACK packet, to indicate acceptance of a TCP connection, and the client program 28 returns a TCP ACK packet to complete the setting up of the TCP connection. Each site reports this RTT data, for each TCP connection established with a client, to the GSLB switch. The GSLB switch (e.g., GSLB switch 12) maintains a database of RTT values (such as in the first storage unit 210), which it creates and updates from data received periodically from the site switches (e.g., site switches 18A, 18B, 22A and 22B), including RTT values related to the smoothing embodiments described herein.
In one embodiment, the GSLB switch favors one host server over another only if the difference in their RTTs (or more particularly, effective RTTs, as will be described herein) with a client is greater than a specified percentage, the default specified percentage value being 10%, for example. To prevent bias, the GSLB switch 12 ignores, by default, RTT values for 5% of client queries from each responding network, for example.
The routing metric collector 205 collects routing information from routers (e.g., topological distances between nodes on the Internet).
In one embodiment, the GSLB switch controller 201 can be programmed with and/or can access data to be used for the RTT metric and its associated calculations and application for GSLB, or data and associated calculations/applications for other metrics described in the co-pending applications identified above. In such an embodiment, the GSLB switch controller 201 can be communicatively coupled to a first storage unit 210 that contains one or more variables, values, settings, or other parameters to be used for RTT calculation. The GSLB switch controller 201 can also be communicatively coupled to a second storage unit 212 in the form of one or more counters, or other suitable data storage mechanism, to track or otherwise store values used during the course of RTT calculation and smoothing.
RTT formulas, RTT data, and other information (including software or other machine-readable instruction) can be stored in a storage medium 214. It is appreciated that the first and second storage units 210-212 may be embodied as the storage medium 214, rather than being separate components.
In an embodiment, the first storage unit 210 and/or the second storage unit 212 can be in the form of databases having tables. It is appreciated, however, that either or both of these storage units 210-212 (including information stored in the storage medium 214) can be embodied by any suitable data structure (including file systems, directory structures, variables, static or dynamic code, or any other suitable technique or structure that can accept and store policy settings and data).
In an embodiment of the RTT smoothing algorithm, the GSLB switch 12 initially determines whether a RTT sample (RTT data received from the metric agent 207 of the site switch 18A, for instance) is in an acceptable range or not. That is, the GSLB switch 12 determines whether a newly received RTT sample is “too large” or “too small” as follows:
At a block 302, the GSLB switch 12 retrieves, from the parameters stored in the RTT database (e.g., the first storage unit 210), the user-configured value for the maximum deviation allowed for an RTT sample from the existing RTT value. For purposes of this example, the maximum deviation retrieved at the block 302 is a percentage value of y %. This means that if the difference between the existing RTT value and the new RTT sample is less than or equal to y % of the existing RTT value, then the new RTT sample is considered to be in the “acceptable range.”
Thus at the block 302, let the maximum allowed deviation from the current RTT value=y %. Also:
Let current RTT value=RTTold; and
Let new RTT sample=RTTnew.
The GSLB switch 12 (or more particularly in an embodiment, the GSLB controller 201) then computes a deviation as follows at a block 304:
deltaRTT=RTTnew−RTTold.
The GSLB switch 12 computes a maximum deviation allowed as follows at a block 306:
max-delta-allowed=(RTTold*y)/100.
At a block 308, the GSLB switch 12 determines whether the new RTT sample falls under one of several potential Cases 1-3. That is:
Case 1 (block 310):
If [(deltaRTT>0) and (|deltaRTT|>max-delta-allowed)], then RTTnew is much larger than the current RTT value;
Case 2 (block 312):
If [(deltaRTT<0) and (|deltaRTT|>max-delta-allowed)], then RTTnew is much smaller than the current RTT value; and
Case 3 (block 314): If Case 1 and Case 2 are false, then RTTnew value is in the acceptable range. Note that |deltaRTT| refers to the absolute value of deltaRTT (e.g., |−3| is 3 and |4| is 4).
An example illustrates application of these concepts:
Let y=200% as set by the user
Let RTTold=300 us
Let RTTnew=100 ms
Using the above method, the new RTT sample is determined to be much larger than the existing RTT value:
deltaRTT=RTTnew−RTT old=100ms−300us=99.7ms
max-delta-allowed=(RTTold*y)/100=(300*200)/100=600us=0.6ms
Since (deltaRTT>0) and (|deltaRTT|>max-delta-allowed), the value of the new RTT sample is considered to be much larger than the existing RTT value in this example.
Based on the determination of whether Case 1, 2, or 3 is present, the flowchart 300 proceeds to a block 316, where RTT smoothing techniques specific to each particular Case 1-3 is performed by the GSLB switch 12. The application of these smoothing techniques/algorithms is described in further detail with reference to
Referring generally to block 718 in
Additionally in an embodiment, each RTT entry will be associated with the following parameters during the course of performing the RTT smoothing algorithm:
Also, there may be other considerations when performing RTT smoothing at the block 316. For instance, when the first RTT measurement is reported for a cache entry, the initial value of RTT will be set to that measurement value. No smoothing will be done for the first RTT measurement, and RTT smoothing will be performed for subsequent RTT samples for this cache entry.
Reset ignore-larger-rtt-count to 0; and
Reset ignore-smaller-rtt-count to 0.
Next at a block 404, the parameter (i.e., the increment factor) that determines how much of the new RTT sample should be factored into the existing RTT value is set:
Set increment-rtt-factor to 1.
The effective RTT value for Case 3 is then computed as follows at a block 406:
RTTeff=(normal-ramp-factor/100)*RTTnew+{[(100−normal-ramp-factor)/100]*RTTold},
wherein RTTold=existing value of RTT and
RTTnew=new RTT sample
In this computation at the block 406, a percentage (based on the user-defined normal-ramp-factor parameter) of the new RTT value is added to a percentage (also based on the normal-ramp-factor parameter) of the existing RTT value to obtain the effective RTT value. Next at a block 408, the existing RTT value is updated by setting the computed RTT effective value as the current RTT value:
RTTold=RTTeff.
If (ignore-smaller-rtt-count>0),
At a block 506, the increment factor is initially set:
From the block 506 and/or from the block 502, the RTT smoothing algorithm then proceeds to a block 508, which involves determining whether the count of consecutive ignored very large RTT values is less than the maximum count of ignored very large RTT values, as defined by the user. If the current count is less than the maximum count, then the current count is incremented at a block 510, and the new RTT value/sample is not used (i.e., is ignored) at a block 512. The pseudocode representation is as follows:
If (ignore-larger-rtt-count<max-ignore-count),
Otherwise at a block 514, the effective RTT value is computed, as the maximum count of very large RTT values has been exceeded, indicating that the large RTT samples are probably not an anomaly and probably justify an adjustment in the current RTT value. The effective value of the RTT is computed at the block 514 as follows:
RTTeff={(100−increment-rtt-factor)/100}*RTTold+(increment-rtt-factor/100)*RTTnew,
wherein
In this computation at the block 514, the effective RTT value is determined as a sum of the percentage of the new and existing RTT values, wherein the percentage is based on the increment factor (which is set to 1 initially). Therefore, with regards to the first new very large RTT value, 1% of the new RTT value is added to 99% of the existing RTT value. These percentages will be adjusted in the presence of subsequent very large RTT sample values.
Next at a block 516, the existing RTT value is updated by setting the computed RTT effective value as the current RTT value:
RTTold=RTTeff.
At a block 518, the increment factor is updated as follows:
If (increment-rtt-factor<normal-ramp-factor),
If (increment-rtt-factor>normal-ramp-factor),
This updating at the block 518 results in an additive increase. That is, whenever the increment factor remains less than the normal ramp factor, the increment factor is increased by adding the increment factor to the ramp up factor, thereby resulting in a progressively higher percentage of new very large RTT values (and progressively lower percentage of existing RTT values) being used for the computation of the effective RTT value at the block 514. Once the increment factor exceeds the normal ramp factor, the increment factor is set/remains at the normal ramp factor for the computation of the effective RTT value.
If (ignore-larger-rtt-count>0),
At a block 606, the increment factor is initially set:
From the block 606 and/or from the block 602, the RTT smoothing algorithm then proceeds to a block 608, which involves determining whether the count of consecutive ignored very small RTT values is less than the maximum count of ignored very small RTT values, as defined by the user. If the current count is less than the maximum count, then the current count is incremented at a block 610, and the new RTT value/sample is not used (i.e., is ignored) at a block 612. The pseudocode representation is as follows:
If (ignore-smaller-rtt-count<max-ignore-count),
Otherwise at a block 614, the effective RTT value is computed, as the maximum count of very small RTT values has been exceeded, indicating that the small RTT samples are probably not an anomaly and probably justify an adjustment in the current RTT value. The effective value of the RTT is computed at the block 614 as follows:
RTTeff={(100−increment-rtt-factor)/100}*RTTold−(increment-rtt-factor/100)*(RTTold−RTTnew),
wherein
In this computation at the block 614, the effective RTT value is determined as a sum of the percentage of the new and existing RTT values, wherein the percentage is based on the increment factor (which is set to 1 initially). Therefore, with regards to the first new very small RTT value, 1% of the new RTT value is added to 98% of the existing RTT value. These percentages will be adjusted in the presence of subsequent very small RTT sample values.
Next at a block 616, the existing RTT value is updated by setting the computed RTT effective value as the current RTT value:
RTTold=RTTeff.
At a block 618, the increment factor is updated as follows:
This updating at the block 618 results in multiplicative decrease. That is, whenever the increment factor remains less than the normal ramp factor, the increment factor is increased by multiplying the increment factor with the ramp down factor, thereby resulting in a progressively higher percentage of new very small RTT values (and progressively lower percentage of existing RTT values) being used for the computation of the effective RTT value at the block 614. Once the increment factor exceeds the normal ramp factor, the increment factor is set/remains at the normal ramp factor for the computation of the effective RTT value.
Once the effective RTT value has been computed for any of the Cases 1-3 as depicted in
With reference back to the adaptation capability depicted in
A) Maximum deviation allowed (block 704): If the user typically observes RTT values in a particular range and then observes that when there is a spike in the RTT value, the deviation between the old and new RTT value is typically, say 500%, of the existing RTT value, then the user can use this information to determine the optimal value for maximum deviation allowed. The user can fine tune the value of maximum deviation allowed (e.g., y % that is set at the block 302 in the scenario previously described above), which in turn will determine which RTT samples should be considered very large or very small as compared to the current RTT RTTold). Any suitable default value for this y % parameter can be used, such as 400%.
B) Maximum ignore count (block 706): This count specifies how many extremely high or extremely low RTT values to ignore. The default value can be 3 or other suitable number. If the user observes that just one spike typically occurs in the RTT once in a while, the user can set this parameter to 1. If the user does not want to ignore any samples, the user can set this parameter to 0.
C) Ramp up factor (block 708): The increment-rtt-factor specifies how much of the new RTT sample value should be used in computing the effective RTT. The ramp-up-factor specifies how much the increment-rtt-factor should be increased for each consecutive extremely large value of RTT. This is an additive increase in one embodiment (e.g., new increment-rtt-factor=old increment-rtt-factor+ramp-up-factor). The ramp-up-factor by default can be 2 or other suitable amount. Note that in an embodiment, the increment-rtt-factor value is bounded by the normal-ramp-factor. This means that if the ramp-up-factor is 2 and normal-ramp-factor is 10, then the increment-rtt-factor will increase as follows: 1,3,5,7, 9,10.
The effective value of RTT is computed as follows in one embodiment:
RTTtemp=(increment-rtt-factor/100)*RTTnew+[(100−increment-rtt-factor)/100]*RTTold;
RTToId=RTTtemp.
If the user has set a high value for max-ignore-count, then the user may want the RTT value to ramp up quickly. The reason is that the GSLB switch 12 has already ignored enough RTT samples with high values. If the GSLB switch 12 is still detecting high values, this means that such values are not anomalies—in reality, the RTT has increased, and the GSLB switch needs to factor this increased RTT into the existing RTT value quickly. The user can set the ramp-up-factor to a higher value in order to achieve this. Note that the increment-rtt-factor is bounded by the normal-ramp-factor in one embodiment, and hence, the user may need to fine-tune both ramp-up-factor and the normal-ramp-factor if a faster ramp up in the RTT value is desired.
D) Ramp down factor (block 710): The increment-rtt-factor specifies how much of the new RTT sample value should be used in computing the effective RTT. The ramp-down-factor specifies how much the increment-rtt-factor should be increased for each consecutive extremely small value of RTT. This is a multiplicative increase (e.g., new increment-rtt-factor=old increment-rtt-factor*ramp-down-factor).
The ramp-down-factor by default can be any suitable number, such as 3. Note that the increment-rtt-factor value is bounded in one embodiment by the normal-ramp-factor. This means that if the ramp-down-factor is 3 and normal-ramp-factor is 10, then the increment-rtt-factor will increase as follows: 1,3,9,10.
The effective value of RTT will be computed by the GSLB switch 12 as follows
RTTtemp={(100−increment-rtt-factor)/100}*RTTold−(increment-rtt-factor/100)*(RTTold−RTTnew);
RTTold=RTTtemp.
Again as described earlier, if the user has set a high value for max-ignore-count, then the user may want the RTT value to ramp down quickly. The user can set the ramp-down-factor to a higher value in order to achieve this. Note that the increment-rtt-factor is bounded by the normal-ramp-factor in an embodiment, and hence, the user may need to fine-tune both the ramp-down-factor and the normal-ramp-factor if a faster ramp down in the RTT value is desired.
In an embodiment, the enhanced RTT smoothing algorithm may be selectively enabled or disabled, which may be performed in accordance with the configuration shown in
In some embodiments, the enhanced RTT smoothing algorithm can be selectively enabled for some sites and disabled for others. Different sets of RTT parameters (e.g., maximum deviation allowed, maximum ignore count, normal ramp factor, ramp up factor, ramp down factor, and the like) can be specified or otherwise defined for each site. Moreover, the user can be provided with mechanisms to simulate RTT smoothing prior to deployment or for testing or adaptation purposes, such as shown in
All of the above U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, U.S. patent applications, foreign patents, foreign patent applications and non-patent publications referred to in this specification and/or listed in the Application Data Sheet, are incorporated herein by reference, in their entirety.
The above description of illustrated embodiments, including what is described in the Abstract, is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. While specific embodiments and examples are described herein for illustrative purposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scope of the invention and can be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention.
For example, various embodiments have been described with respect to RTT that is computed based on the time interval(s) involved in a TCP SYN/ACK exchange between the client program 28 and one of the site switches (18A, 18B, 22A, or 22B). It is appreciated that RTT in other embodiments can be based on time interval(s) involved in communication exchanges (whether direct or indirect) between other types of network devices. Moreover, such embodiments need not necessarily be based on or use a TCP SYN/ACK format for purposes of calculating RTT.
These and other modifications can be made to the invention in light of the above detailed description. The terms used in the following claims should not be construed to limit the invention to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification and the claims. Rather, the scope of the invention is to be determined entirely by the following claims, which are to be construed in accordance with established doctrines of claim interpretation.
The present application is a continuation that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 12/177,021, entitled “SMOOTHING ALGORITHM FOR ROUND TRIP TIME (RTT) MEASUREMENTS,” filed Jul. 21, 2008, which in turn is a continuation that claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/924,552, entitled “SMOOTHING ALGORITHM FOR ROUND TRIP TIME (RTT) MEASUREMENTS,” filed Aug. 23, 2004, assigned to the same assignee as the present application, and which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5031094 | Toegel et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5359593 | Derby et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5530872 | Smeltzer et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5539883 | Allon et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5867706 | Martin et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5918017 | Attanasio et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5948061 | Merriman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5951634 | Sitbon et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6006269 | Phaal | Dec 1999 | A |
6006333 | Nielsen | Dec 1999 | A |
6078956 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092178 | Jindal et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6112239 | Kenner et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115752 | Chauhan | Sep 2000 | A |
6119143 | Dias et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128279 | O'Neil et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6128642 | Doraswamy et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6134588 | Guenthner et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6148410 | Baskey et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157649 | Peirce et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167445 | Gai et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167446 | Lister et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6178160 | Bolton et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182139 | Brendel | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185619 | Joffe et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195691 | Brown | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6205477 | Johnson et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6233604 | Van Horne et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6249801 | Zisapel et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6260070 | Shah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6262976 | McNamara | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6286039 | Van Horne et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6286047 | Ramanathan et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304913 | Rune | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317775 | Coile et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324177 | Howes et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324580 | Jindal et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327622 | Jindal et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6330605 | Christensen et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336137 | Lee et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6378068 | Foster et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381627 | Kwan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389462 | Cohen et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393473 | Chu | May 2002 | B1 |
6405252 | Gupta et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411998 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6427170 | Sitaraman et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434118 | Kirschenbaum | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438652 | Jordan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446121 | Shah et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449657 | Stanbach, Jr. et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6470389 | Chung et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473802 | Masters | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6480508 | Mwikalo et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6487555 | Bharat et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490624 | Sampson et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6513061 | Ebata et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6542964 | Scharber | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549944 | Weinberg et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6578066 | Logan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6578077 | Rakoshitz et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6601084 | Bhaskaran et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606643 | Emens et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611861 | Schairer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6647009 | Tsuruoka et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665702 | Zisapel et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6681232 | Sistanizadeh et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6681323 | Fontanesi et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684250 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6691165 | Bruck et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701368 | Chennapragada et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718387 | Gupta et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6725253 | Okano et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6745241 | French et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748416 | Carpenter et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6754699 | Swildens et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6760775 | Anerousis et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772211 | Lu et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6775230 | Watanabe et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6779017 | Lamberton et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785704 | McCanne | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6789125 | Aviani et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795434 | Kumar et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795858 | Jain et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6795860 | Shah | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6801949 | Bruck et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6810411 | Coughlin et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6826198 | Turina et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6839700 | Doyle et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6850984 | Kalkunte et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862627 | Cheshire | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6874152 | Vermeire et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6879995 | Chinta et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6880000 | Tominaga et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6883028 | Johnson et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6898633 | Lyndersay et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6901081 | Ludwig | May 2005 | B1 |
6920498 | Gourlay et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6928485 | Krishnamurthy et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6950848 | Yousefi'zadeh | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6963914 | Breitbart et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6963917 | Callis et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6968389 | Menditto et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6985956 | Luke et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6987763 | Rochberger et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996551 | Hellerstein et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
6996615 | McGuire | Feb 2006 | B1 |
6996616 | Leighton et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7000007 | Valenti | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7020698 | Andrews et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7020714 | Kalyanaraman et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7028083 | Levine et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7032010 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7032031 | Jungck et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7036039 | Holland | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7047300 | Oehrke et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7058706 | Iyer et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7058717 | Chao et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7062562 | Baker et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7062642 | Langrind et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7080138 | Baker et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7082102 | Wright | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7086061 | Joshi et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7089293 | Grosner et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7099915 | Tenereillo et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7114008 | Jungck et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117269 | Lu et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117530 | Lin | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7124188 | Mangipudi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7127713 | Davis et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7136932 | Schneider et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7139242 | Bays | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7177933 | Foth | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7185052 | Day | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194553 | Lucco et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7197547 | Miller et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7206806 | Pineau | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7213068 | Kohli et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7225236 | Puthiyandyil et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7225272 | Kelley et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7240015 | Karmouch et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7240100 | Wein et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7254626 | Kommula et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7257642 | Bridger et al. | Aug 2007 | B1 |
7260645 | Bays | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7277954 | Stewart et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7289519 | Liskov | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7296088 | Padmanabhan et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7321926 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2008 | B1 |
7330908 | Jungck | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7383288 | Miloushev et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7423977 | Joshi et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7441045 | Skene et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7447739 | Cunetto et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7454500 | Hsu et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7478148 | Neerdaels | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7496651 | Joshi | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7523181 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7573886 | Ono | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7574508 | Kommula | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7581006 | Lara et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7581009 | Hsu et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7584262 | Wang et al. | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7584301 | Joshi | Sep 2009 | B1 |
7594262 | Hanzlik et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7653700 | Bahl et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7657629 | Kommula | Feb 2010 | B1 |
7676576 | Kommula | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7756965 | Joshi | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7792113 | Foschiano et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7840678 | Joshi | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7860964 | Brady et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7885188 | Joshi | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7899899 | Joshi | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7899911 | Jensen et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7925713 | Day et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7949757 | Joshi | May 2011 | B2 |
8024441 | Kommula et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
20010049741 | Skene et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010052016 | Skene et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020026551 | Kamimaki et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020038360 | Andrews et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020049778 | Bell et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055939 | Nardone et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059170 | Vange | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059464 | Hata et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020062372 | Hong et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078233 | Biliris et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087722 | Datta et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091840 | Pulier et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020107841 | Hellerstein et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020112036 | Bohannon et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120743 | Shabtay et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120763 | Miloushev et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020124096 | Loguinov et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133601 | Kennamer et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020150048 | Ha et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020154600 | Ido et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156916 | Watanabe | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020186698 | Ceniza | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020188862 | Trethewey et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194324 | Guha | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194335 | Maynard | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030018796 | Chou et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030031185 | Kikuchi et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030035430 | Islam et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030065711 | Acharya et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030065762 | Stolorz et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030065763 | Swildens et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030074472 | Lucco et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030105797 | Dolev et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030115283 | Barbir et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030135509 | Davis et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030154239 | Davis et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030177240 | Gulko et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030210686 | Terrell et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030210694 | Jayaraman et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229697 | Borella | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040019680 | Chao et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024872 | Kelley et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039798 | Hotz et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039847 | Persson et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040064577 | Dahlin et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040194102 | Neerdaels | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040249939 | Amini et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040249971 | Klinker | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255018 | Taraci | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040259565 | Lucidarme | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050002410 | Chao et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021883 | Shishizuka et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050033858 | Swildens et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050086295 | Cunningham et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050149531 | Srivastava | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050169180 | Ludwig | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050286416 | Shimonishi et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060020715 | Jungck | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036743 | Deng et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060167894 | Wunner | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060209689 | Nakano et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070168448 | Garbow et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070168547 | Krywaniuk | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070180113 | Van Bemmel | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208877 | Kelley et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080016233 | Schneider | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080037420 | Tang | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080123597 | Arbol | May 2008 | A1 |
20080144784 | Limberg | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080147866 | Stolorz et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080207200 | Fein et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20100010991 | Joshi | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011120 | Kommula | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100011126 | Hsu et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100061236 | Joshi | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100082787 | Kommula et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100095008 | Joshi | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100115133 | Joshi | May 2010 | A1 |
20100121932 | Joshi et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100153558 | Kommula | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100223621 | Joshi | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100251008 | Swildens | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100293296 | Hsu et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100299427 | Joshi | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110099261 | Joshi | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110122771 | Joshi | May 2011 | A1 |
20110191459 | Joshi | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110264798 | Joshi | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20120096166 | Devarapalli et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1128613 | Aug 2001 | EP |
0139003 | May 2001 | WO |
0193530 | Dec 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Nov. 26, 2010, 19 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Nov. 22, 2010, 24 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, filed Sep. 26, 2000, Hsu et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, filed Jul. 25, 2002, Kommula et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, filed Aug. 7, 2002, Kommula. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, filed Nov. 27, 2002, Joshi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, filed Feb. 28, 2003, Kommula. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, filed Feb. 28, 2003, Kommula. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, filed Sep. 29, 2003, Joshi. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, filed May 6, 2004, Joshi. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, filed May 6, 2004, Joshi. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, filed Aug. 23, 2004, Joshi. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, May 5, 2006, Joshi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, filed Feb. 16, 2007. Kommula et al. |
Albitz, P., et al., “DNS and BIND in a Nutshell,” O'Reilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA, 1992, pp. 214-215. |
Alteon Systems, “Alteon WebSystems Introduces New Layer 4+ Switching Technology that Speeds User Access to Internet Servers,” Dec. 7, 1998, retrieved Nov. 5, 2002, from http://web.archive.org/web/2000091919040941,www.alteonwebsystems.com/press/releases/1998/120798.asp, pp. 1-4. |
Alteon WebSystems, Inc., “Enhancing Web User Experience with Global Server Load Balancing,” Jun. 1999, 8 pages. |
AlteonWebSystems, “PCD White Paper,” AlteonWebSystems, pp. 1-8, Mar. 2001. |
Bestavros, Azer, “WWW Traffic Reduction and Load Balancing through Server-Based Caching,” IEEE Concurrency, Jan.-Mar. 1997, pp. 56-67. |
Cardellini, V., et al., “Dynamic Load Balancing on Web-server Systems,” IEEE Internet Computing, 3(3):28-39, May-Jun. 1999. |
Cisco Document, “Configuring the CSS Domain Name Service,”, posted on Dec. 2000, Cisco Systems Inc., http://www.ciscosystems.com, pp. 1-13. |
Foundry Networks, Inc., “Server Load Balancing in Today's Web-enabled Enterprises,” White Paper, pp. 1-10, Apr. 2002. |
Genova, Z., et al., “Challenges in URL Switching for Implementing Globally Distributed Web Sites,” IEEE, pp. 89-94, 2000. |
Genova, Z., et al., “Challenges to URL Switching for Implementing Globally Distributed Web Sites,” Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Florida, pp. 1-9, Aug. 11, 2000. |
IBM Corp., IBM WebSphere Performance Pack: Load Balancing with IBM SecureWay Network Dispatcher, First Edition, Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 8, Oct. 1999. |
IBM Corp., SecureWay® Network Dispatcher: User's Guide—Version 2.1 for AIX, Solaris, and Windows NT, Third Edition, Chapters 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and Appendices C & E, Mar. 1999. |
Krapf, E., “Alteon's Global Server Load Balancing,” Business Communications Review, Jan. 1999, p. 60, retrieved Oct. 25, 2002, from http://www.bcr.com/bcrmagl/1999/01/p60.asp, 3 pages. |
Nortel Networks, “Alteon Personal Content Director,” © 2001, can be retrieved from http://www.nortelnetworks.com/personalinternet, 4 pages. |
Paul, Arindam et al., “Balancing Web Server Load for Adaptable Video Distribution,” IEEE, 2000, pp. 469-476. |
Venkataramani, A., et al., “TCP Nice: A Mechanism for Background Transfer,” Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI'02), ISBN:1-931971-06-4, 329-343, 2002. |
Yerxa, G., “ACElerate on Fast Track for Load-Balancing,” Mar. 8, 1999, retrieved Nov. 5, 2002, from http://www.networkcomputing.com/1005/1005sp2.html, pp. 1-4. |
Notice of Allowance issued in U.S. Appl. No. 12/353,701, mailed Apr. 9, 2010. |
Doeringer, W. et al., “Routing on Longest-Matching Prefixes,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 86-97, Feb. 1996. |
F5 Networks, Inc., “Keeping Up with Multi-Service Applications,” White Paper Document, pp. 1-8, Jan. 2006, Seattle, WA. |
Citrix Systems, Inc., “NetScaler Global Server Load Balancing for Presentation Server and Access Gateway (All Editions) Deployments,” Design Consideration NetScaler 8.0, 2007, pp. 1-16, Fort Lauderdale, FL. |
F5 Networks, Inc., “Optimize Application Delivery Across Your Globally Distributed Data Centers,” BIG-IP Global Traffic Manager Datasheet, 2009, pp. 1-8, Seattle, WA. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Jan. 12, 2010. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/211,822, mailed Aug. 19, 2005. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/211,822, mailed Mar. 7, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377;364, mailed Sep. 22, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Mar. 26, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Sep. 4, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Apr. 9, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Nov. 24, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Aug. 31, 2009. |
Advisory Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed Nov. 23, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, mailed Aug. 15, 2005. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, mailed Mar. 9, 2006. |
Advisory Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, mailed Jun. 6, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, mailed Jul. 12, 2006. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, mailed Jan. 11, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Jul. 17, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Jan. 12, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Jun. 5, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Feb. 20, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Oct. 16, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Mar. 3, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Sep. 17, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Feb. 7, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Aug. 9, 2006. |
Advisory Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Sep. 21, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Dec. 7, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Aug. 13, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Nov. 15, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921; mailed Jun. 12, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214;921, mailed Oct. 6, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/214,921, mailed Apr. 3, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Jan. 12, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Jul. 3, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Jan. 3, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Sep. 10, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Mar. 24, 2008. |
Advisory Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Jul. 9, 2008. |
Examiner's Answer, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Mar. 4, 2009. |
Supplemental Examiners Answer, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed Apr. 13, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Jun. 5, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Nov. 3, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Jul. 30, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Apr. 11, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Dec. 23, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Aug. 3, 2009. |
Devarapalli et al., U.S. Appl. No. 61/393,796, filed Oct. 15, 2010. |
Devarapalli et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,390, filed Oct. 29, 2010. |
Joshi, U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,232, filed Nov. 2, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Sep. 17, 2010, 27 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Sep. 29, 2009, 16 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Feb. 4, 2010, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/206,580, Mailed Jul. 6, 2007, 5 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed on Oct. 19, 2009, 4 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Oct. 7, 2010, 44 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Oct. 7, 2010, 26 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed on Aug. 19, 2010, 4 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,130, mailed on Oct. 12, 2010, 49 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Complaint for Patent Infringement with Exhibits A-G, filed on Apr. 23, 2010, 131 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Patent Infringement with Exhibits H-I, filed on Jul. 16, 2010, 41 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03443, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment with Exhibits A-I, filed Aug. 6, 2010, 153 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4033, “DNS Security Introduction and Requirements,” Mar. 2005, 22 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4034, “Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions;” Mar. 2005, 31 pages. |
Network Working Group, Request for Comments (RFC) 4035, “Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions,” Mar. 2005, 55 pages. |
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Deployment Guide,” Special Publication 800-81, May 2006, 103 pages. |
CMP Media LLC, “VeriSign DNSSEC Interop Lab Adds Brocade, A10 Networks, BlueCat Networks,” Jun. 29, 2010, can be retrieved from http://www.darkreading.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=225701776, 3 pages. |
Meyer, Nathan et al., “F5 and Infoblox DNS Integrated Architecture: Offering a Complete Scalable, Secure DNS Solution,” A F5 Networks, Inc. Technical Brief, 2010, 18 pages, Seattle, WA. |
Silva, Peter, “DNSSEC: The Antidote to DNS Cache Poisoning and Other DNS Attacks,” A F5 Networks, Inc. Technical Brief, 2009, 10 pages, Seattle, WA. |
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., “Domain Name Security Extensions,” retrieved Oct. 22, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain—Name—System—Security—Extensions, 17 pages. |
A10 Networks, Inc., “A10 Networks Announces Unique and Wide Ranging Customer-Driven Functionality for AX Series Application Delivery Controllers,” News Release, Oct. 18, 2010, from http://www.a10networks.com/news/2010/101018-AX—Series—2.6.php, 2 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332, Report on the Filing or Determination of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark, filed on Aug. 5, 2010, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Complaint for Patent Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., filed on Aug. 4, 2010, with Exhibits A-M, 196 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of the Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., filed on Oct. 29, 2010, 38 pages. |
Advisory Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/674,627, mailed Oct. 16, 2009. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed Mar. 5, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed Jun. 18, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919, mailed Dec. 9, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/839,919 mailed May 14, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed Oct. 18, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed Aug. 1, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/840,496, mailed Oct. 15, 2008. |
Stalvig, P., “Disaster Recovery: Not Just Planning for the Worst,” an F5 Networks, Inc, White Paper Document, 2008, pp. 1-16, F5 Networks, Inc., Seattle, WA. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, mailed Feb. 27, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, mailed May 30, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Dec. 31, 2003. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Sep. 21, 2004. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Mar. 15, 2005. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Nov. 3, 2005. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed May 3, 2006. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Nov. 17, 2006. |
Office Action; issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Oct. 30, 2007. |
Office Action issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Jul. 22, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/670,487, mailed Sep. 18, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, mailed Nov. 27, 2007. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, mailed Apr. 29, 2008. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, mailed Oct. 31, 2008. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, mailed Apr. 1, 2009. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/376,903, mailed Mar. 4, 2009. |
Notice of Allowance, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 10/377,364, mailed on Jan. 12, 2010. |
Cisco Systems, Inc., “The Global Server Load Balancing Primer,” a Cisco Systems, Inc. White Paper Document, 1992-2004; pp. 1-20, San Jose, CA. |
Kommula, U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, filed Dec. 10, 2009. |
Joshi, U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,779, filed May 26, 2010. |
Office Action, issued in U.S. Appl. No. 12/353,701, mailed Nov. 4, 2009. |
Hsu et al., U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, filed Nov. 17, 2008. |
Joshi et al., Hsu et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/229,380, filed Sep. 9, 2011. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of the Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., with Exhibits A-P, filed on Apr. 13, 2011, 238 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Trade Secret Misappropriation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of the Duty of Loyalty, Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Interference with Contract, and Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., filed on Apr. 29, 2011, 42 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Answer to Third Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, filed on May 16, 2011, 40 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Answer to Defendant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Counterclaims, and Counterclaim, filed on May 27, 2011, 12 pages. |
Delgadillo, K., “Cisco Distributed Director,” Cisco White Paper, 1999, 19 pages. |
Table of Contents for 2nd Conference on Telecommunications (ConfTele'99), Apr. 15-16, 1999, 9 pages. |
Bernardo, L. et al., “Scalability Issues in Telecommunication Services,” In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Telecommunications (ConfTele′99), Apr. 15-16, 1999, pp. 409-413. |
Lin, “VPN Tunnel Balancer,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/169,502, filed Dec. 7, 1999, 7 pages. |
Cisco Systems, Inc., “Cisco LocalDirector Version 1.6.3 Release Notes,” Oct. 1997, 52 pages, San Jose, CA. |
Foundry Networks, Inc., “Foundry Serverlron Installation and Configuration Guide,” May 2000, 784 pages. |
Dell Computer Corporation, “3-DNS Reference Guide, Version 4.2,” 2002, 261 pages. |
Schemers III, “Ibnamed: A Load Balancing Name Server in Perl,” 1995 LISA IX, Sep. 17-22, 1995, Monterey, CA, 13 pages. |
Goldszmidt, “Load Distribution for Scalable Web Servers: Summer Olympics 1996,” In Proceedings of the 8th IFIP/IEEE International Workshop on Distributed Systems: Operations and Management, Sydney, Australia, Oct. 1997, 10 pages. |
“Use F5 Networks' 3DNS Controller to Supercharge Standard DNS Capabilities,” Jul. 1999, F5 White Paper, Seattle, WA. |
Buyya, “High Performance Cluster Computing: Architectures and Systems,” vol. 1, copyright 1999, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, http://www.phptr.com. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—A10 Networks, Inc.'s Answer to Plaintiffs Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLLC's Counterclaims, Filed Jun. 17, 2011, 4 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,547,508 and 7,270,977, Filed Aug. 1, 2011, 31 pages, including Exhibits A and B. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,558,195, 7,657,629, 7,840,678, Filed Aug. 5, 2011, 316 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patent 7,584,301, Filed Aug. 12, 2011, 14 pages, including Exhibit A. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Joint Claim Construction, Filed Aug. 26, 2011, 29 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patents 7,774,833; 7,454,500; 7,899,899; 7,754,965; 7,647,427; and 7,716,370, Filed Sep. 6, 2011, 72 pages, including Exhibits A through F. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant's A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's, David Cheung's, Liang Han's, and Steven Hwang's Invalidity Contentions, Filed Jun. 27, 2011, 779 pages, Including Exhibits A through M. |
Skene et al., “Method and System for Balancing Load Distribution on a Wide Area Network,” U.S. Appl. No. 09/459,815, filed Dec. 13, 1999, 59 pages. |
Skene et al., “Method and System for Name Server Load Balancing,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/182,812, filed Feb. 16, 2000, 16 pages. |
Tsimelzon et al., “Java application framework for an internet content delivery network,” U.S. Appl. No. 60/347,481, filed Jan. 11, 2002, 26 pages. |
“Foundry Networks Announces Application Aware Layer 7 Switching on ServerIron Platform,” Mar. 1999, 4 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Order Construing Disputed Claim Terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; 7,840,678; and 5,875,185, issued Jan. 6, 2012, 33 pages. |
Information Disclosure Statement filed on Apr. 4, 2004, for U.S. Patent No. 7,308,475, 5 pages. |
Release Note: 3-DNS Controller, version 4.5, Mar. 5, 2007, 19 pages. |
F5 Networks' Newest Wide Area Traffic Management Solution Enables Enterprises to Meet Global e-Business Objectives, Business Wire, Feb. 19, 2002, 4 pages. |
Release Note: 3-DNS Controller, version 4.2, Feb. 13, 2002, 23 pages. |
Huang et al., “A DNS Reflection Method for Global Traffic Management,” Proceedings USENIX Annual Technical Conference (ATC′10), 2010, 7 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Expert Report of J. Douglas Tygar in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s, and Defendant Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Invalidity Contentions, filed Mar. 23, 2012, 81 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428, Transcript of the Deposition of Kevin Delgadillo, taken Mar. 14, 2012, 12 pages. |
Delgadillo, K., “Cisco DistributedDirector,” posted Apr. 12, 1999, submitted as Exhibit 2 in Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., Civil Action CV10-03428, Mar. 21, 2012, 27 pages. |
Delgadillo, K., “Cisco DistributedDirector,” 1999, submitted as Exhibit 3 in Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., Civil Action CV10-03428, Mar. 21, 2012, 20 pages. |
Declaration of James E. Mrose, entered as Exhibit Q in Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., Civil Action CV10-03428, Mar. 21, 2012, 4 pages. |
Information Disclosure Statement, filed Jul. 27, 1999 in the prosecution of U.S. Appl. No. 09/294,837, submitted as Exhibit A to the Mrose Declaration, 7 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 29 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 1, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed Jul. 21, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, mailed Aug. 12, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, 11 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed Oct. 13, 2011, 8 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Nov. 17, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, 3 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 58 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed on Apr. 10, 2012, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed May 17, 2012, 53 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,772, mailed on Jun. 29, 2012, 6 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 157 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jun. 30, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed Jul. 6, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965, mailed Aug. 19, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, 9 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, 12 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 3, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action with Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed on Mar. 26, 2012, 17 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,761, mailed on Jul. 17, 2012, 11 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965 B1, filed Nov. 18, 2011, 189 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Dec. 1, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965 and Office Action, mailed Feb. 13, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, 18 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 30, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jun. 13, 2012, 40 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,827, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,779, mailed Dec. 20, 2010, 45 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 6, 2012, 46 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, mailed on Jul. 17, 2012, 76 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, mailed Jul. 17, 2012, 35 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Jul. 20, 2012, 46 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, mailed Jul. 20, 2012, 12 pages. |
Civil Action 10-332—Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.—Civil Cover Sheet, filed on Apr. 23, 2010, 1 page. |
Civil Action—Case No. CV10-03443—Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, filed on Aug. 6, 2010, with Exhibits A through I, 153 pages. |
Civil Action—Case No. CV10-03443—Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, filed on Aug. 16, 2010, 2 pages. |
Civil Action—CV10-03428—Order Reassigning Case. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Lucy H. Koh for all further proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case, filed Aug. 16, 2010, 1 page. |
Civil Action—CV10-03428—Motion to Dismiss Complaint filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Oct. 11, 2010, 30 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant, David Cheung's Answer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed Nov. 11, 2010, 32 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 12, 2010, 34 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 12, 2010, 56 pages. Included: Exhibits A and B. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Memorandum in Opposition re Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jan. 27, 2011, 33 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply to Opposition re Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Liang Han, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Feb. 3, 2011, 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, filed Mar. 23, 2011, 19 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Motion to Stay Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Liang Han, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Jul. 1, 2011, 26 pages. Included: Affidavit Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Motion; Proposed Order, Exhibits 1 and 2. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 15, 2011, 20 pages. Included: Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Siddhartha M. Venkatesan in Support of Opposition/Response to Motion, Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 15, 2011, 70 pages. Included: Exhibits A through E. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Jul. 22, 2011, 34 pages. Included: Declaration of Scott R. Mosko, Exhibits A, C, and D. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 34 pages. Included: Proposed Order for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause and Proposed Preliminary Injunction. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Andrew (Andy) Guerrero in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Andrew (Andy) Guerrero ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Fabio E. Marino in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Tro and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Keith Stewart in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Mani Prasad Kancherla in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Prasad Aluri in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Robert D. Young in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 46 pages. Included: Redacted Exhibits 1 through 8. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Lisa McGill in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Redacted Version] of Declaration of Fabio E. Marino ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Jul. 26, 2011, 506 pages. Included: Exhibits 1 through 30. (due to size, this references will be submitted in three parts). |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum In Further Support of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction[Redacted Version] filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 4, 2011, 22 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Errata re Reply Memorandum in Further Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 5, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying Motion to Stay; finding as moot Motion to Compel; denying Motion to Qualify Expert Kevin Jeffay Under the Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part Motion for Sanctions; granting Motion to Order A10 to File Confidential Information Under Seal; granting Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority, filed Aug. 12, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order Denying Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Redacted Version] of Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Aug. 16, 2011, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Granted Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Sep. 27, 2011, 18 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Redacted Declaration of David Klausner in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Sep. 28, 2011, 9 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Redacted Declaration of Dr. Chi Zhang in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., filed Sep. 28, 2011, 4 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 21 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Teri H.P. Nguyen in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 259 pages. Included: Exhibits A through R. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Initial Claim Construction Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 31 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; 7,840,678; 7,716,370; 7,647,427; and 7,558,195 filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC., filed Oct. 11, 2011, 251 pages. Included: Exhibits A through H and Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC's Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Notice of Errata and Submission of Corrected Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 13, 2011, 8 pages. Included: Proposed Order and Declaration. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages and Striking Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement, filed Oct. 18, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Brocade Communications, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLCs Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; and 7,840,678, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Oct. 21, 2011, 162 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s, and Defendants Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, and Ron Szeto's Opposition to Plaintiffs Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Assignor Estoppel, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 8, 2011, 17 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Responsive Claim-Construction Brief (PLR 4-5(b)) by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 28 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (PLR 4-5(b)) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 70 pages. Included: Exhibits A through F. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of J. Douglas Tygar, Ph.D. in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Responsive Claim Construction Brief (PLR 4-5(b)) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed on Nov. 15, 2011, 77 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Opposition re Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,875,185; Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; and 7,840,678, filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.s, and Defendants Lee Chens and Rajkumar Jalans Opposition to Plaintiffs Brocade Communications, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLCs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,584,301; and 7,840,678 filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, filed Nov. 15, 2011, 16 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 21, 2011, 8 pages. Included: Declaration and Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Reply Claim Construction Brief filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 22, 2011, 22 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Reply Claim Construction Brief, filed by Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Foundry Networks, LLC, filed Nov. 22, 2011, 12 pages. Included: Exhibit A. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Motion to Stay Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Renewed Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexamination (All Patents Asserted by Plaintiffs) filed by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 23, 2011, 15 pages. Included: Proposed Order. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott A. Herbst Declaration of Scott A. Herbst in Support of Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.s and Defendants Lee Chens, Rajkumar Jalans, Ron Szetos, and Steve Hwangs Renewed Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexamination (All Patents Asserted by Plaintiffs) filed byA10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Steve Hwang, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto, filed Nov. 23, 2011, 25 pages. Included: Exhibits 1 through 6. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Litigation Docket, printed on Nov. 26, 2011, 2011, 44 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Assignor Estoppel, filed Nov. 30, 2011, 2 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Brocades Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed Dec. 7, 2011, 18 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's, and Steve Hwang's Reply in Support of its Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Reexaminations (All Patents Asserted by Plaintiffs), Filed Dec. 14, 2011, 11 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent Nos. 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,574,508; and 7,720,977, filed Dec. 28, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent No. 7,581,301, filed Dec. 29, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent Nos. 7,657,629 and 7,840,678, filed Jan. 20, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice regarding Inter Partes Reexaminations of Plaintiffs' Asserted Patents: (i) Four Newly-Granted Requests (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,833; 7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,581,009); and (ii) Status Updated for Eleven Already-Instituted Reexaminations (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,833; 7,647,427; 7,716,370; 7,581,009; 7,657,629; 7,840,678; 7,584,301; 7,558,195; 7,454,500; 7,720,977; and 7,574,508), filed Feb. 6, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of Plaintiffs' U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965 and Status Update, filed Feb. 16, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Requests for Reexaminations Granted re Patents 7,558,195; 7,657,629; and 7,840,678, filed Aug. 5, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Granted Requests for Reexamination of Patent 7,584,301, filed Aug. 12, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 14 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of John Chiong in Support of Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott A. Herbst in Support of Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff A10 Networks, Inc.'s and Defendants Lee Chen's and Rajkumar Jalan's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370, filed Oct. 11, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Nitin Gambhir in Support of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's (1) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370 [Filed Under Seal]; (2) Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370 [Filed Under Seal]; and (3) Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,558,195 [Filed Under Seal], filed Nov. 8, 2011, 153 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370, filed Nov. 22, 2011, 17 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Siddhartha M. Venkatesan in Support of Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexaminations, filed Dec. 7, 2011, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Azer Bestavros in Support of Brocade's Claim Construction Brief, filed Oct. 20, 2011, 24 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Izhak Rubin in Support of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's: (1) Claim Construction Brief; (2) Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,427 and 7,716,370; and (3) Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,558,195, filed Nov. 18, 2011, 34 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying A10's Motion for Summary Judgment of NonInfringement; Granting Brocade's Motion for Summary Judgment of NonInfringement, issued Jan. 6, 2012, 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—A10 Networks, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File “Notice of Activity Before the Patent Office from the Ongoing Inter Partes and Ex parte Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents” and Proposed Order, filed Mar. 12, 2012, 10 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott A. Herbst in Support of A10 Networks, Inc.'s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Notice of Activity Before the Patent Office from the Ongoing Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents and Proposed Order, filed Apr. 12, 2012, 70 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting Motion for Leave to File “Notice of Acticity Before the Patent Office From the Ongoing Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents,” issued Mar. 15, 2012, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Apr. 13, 2012, 223 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Teri H.P. Nguyen in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Invalidity Declaratory Relief Counterclaim and Invalidity Affirmative Defense Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,55,195; and 7,774,833, filed May 3, 2012, 23 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Exhibit 17 to Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 4, 2012, 25 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Amended Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 7, 2012, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc.'s Notice of Activity in the Ongoing inter partes and ex parte Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents, filed May 11, 2012, 5 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Plaintiff's Objections to Declarations Submitted by A10 Networks, Inc., Lee Chen, Rajkumar Jalan, Ron Szeto and Steve Hwang in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed May 17, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Elizabeth C. McBride in Support of Plaintiffs Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 17, 2012, 135 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Gary Hemminger in Support of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.'s and Foundry Networks, LLC's Opposition to Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 17, 2012, 3 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Invalidity Declaratory Relief Counterclaim and Invalidity Defense Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500, 7,581,009; 7,558,195; and 7,774,833, filed May 17, 2012, 30 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Declaration of Scott R. Mosko in Support of Defendants A10 Networks, Inc.'s, Lee Chen's, Rajkumar Jalan's, Ron Szeto's and Steve Hwang's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Invalidity Declaratory Relief Counterclaim and Invalidity Defense Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,558,195; and 7,774,833, filed May 17, 2012, 13 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part A10's Motion for Summary Judgment, Jun. 12, 2012, 36 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 7,454,500; 7,581,009; 7,558,195; and 7,774,833, Jun. 18, 2012; 20 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Defendant and Counterclaimant A10 Network, Inc's Amended Supplemental Claim Construction Brief, filed Jun. 30, 2012, 9 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Plaintiffs Supplemental Claim Construction Brief, with Declarations of Azer Bestravros and Izhak Rubin, filed Jul. 3, 2012, 15 pages. |
Civil Action CV10-03428—Further Claim Construction Order, Jul. 5, 2012, 4 pages. |
Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request and Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,500 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, mailed Dec. 16, 2011, 43 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Vacate, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 1, 2012, 15 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Suspend Reexamination for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 2, 2012, 14 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Mar. 19, 2012, 36 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Patent Owner's Petition to “Supplement,” for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,806, filed Apr. 19, 2012, 21 pages. |
Terminal Disclaimer for U.S. Appl. No. 11/741,480, filed Jan. 29, 2008, 1 page. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 58 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary, for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Jul. 18, 2011, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, mailed Sep. 21, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 14 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Feb. 16, 2012, 35 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary, for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, mailed Mar. 27, 2012, 3 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 28, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,770, 3 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 197 pages. |
Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request and Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date, mailed Nov. 10, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,581,009 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, mailed Jan. 31, 2012, 23 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Mar. 30, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Vacate, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Apr. 16, 2012, 17 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, with Exhibits 1-7, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed May 30, 2012, 145 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requester's Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,807, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Jan. 28, 2011, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on May 16, 2011, 11 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Jun. 14, 2011, 5 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/496,560, mailed on Jun. 15, 2012, 30 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/272,618, mailed on Jun. 14, 2011, 13 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Patent Application No. 12/272,618, mailed on Feb. 28, 2012, 12 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, mailed May 19, 2011, 87 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, mailed Oct. 18, 2011, 25 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/429,177, mailed Jun. 20, 2012, 47 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 36 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 7, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, Jul. 14, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629, mailed Jul. 30, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 10 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, mailed on Oct. 4, 2011, 7 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Dec. 2, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,766, 3 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629 B1, filed Nov. 17, 2011, 238 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Dec. 5, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,657,629 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, mailed Jan. 12, 2012, 33 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,824, filed Apr. 11, 2012, 21 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Apr. 20, 2011, 10 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed on Aug. 5, 2011, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 11/707,697, mailed Aug. 12, 2011, 6 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Mar. 16, 2011, 7 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Mar. 24, 2011, 29 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Jun. 8, 2011, 9 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Feb. 15, 2012, 10 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/635,371, mailed on Jul. 13, 2012, 10 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 21 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jun. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, Jul. 21, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, mailed Jul. 22, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, 15 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Nov. 14, 2011, 18 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Nov. 18, 2011, 18 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 3, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, 3 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Jan. 6, 2012, 52 pages. |
Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,764, mailed on Jun. 21, 2012, 56 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508, filed Nov. 4, 2011, 70 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,508 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, mailed Dec. 8, 2011, 20 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, with Exhibits A-E, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, filed Mar. 9, 2012, 79 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,804, mailed Jun. 21, 2012, 74 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/506,137, mailed on Nov. 23, 2011, 63 pages. |
Decision on Appeal for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Jul. 11, 2011, 10 pages. |
Decision on Request for Rehearing for U.S. Appl. No. 10/305,823, mailed on Nov. 1, 2011, 5 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 36 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 6, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, Jul. 6, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301, mailed Aug. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 10 pages. |
Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination for Control No. 90/011,765, mailed on Oct. 13, 2011, 7 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Dec. 9, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,765, mailed May 16, 2012, 59 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301, filed Nov. 8, 2011, 194 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 21, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,584,301 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, mailed Dec. 28, 2011, 25 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, filed Mar. 29, 2012, 33 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001, 812, mailed Jun. 2, 2012, 49 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,812, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 25 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 1, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed Jul. 5, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678, mailed Jul. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 10 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed Oct. 4, 2011, 7 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Nov. 17, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, 3 pages. |
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Nov. 29, 2011, 57 pages. |
Final Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Apr. 25, 2012, 51 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,763, mailed on Jul. 13, 2012, 14 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678, mailed on Nov. 17, 2011, 164 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 23, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,678 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, mailed Jan. 12, 2012, 21 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, filed Apr. 11, 2012, 37 pages. |
Action Closing Prosecution, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, mailed May 5, 2012, 45 pages. |
Third Party Requester's Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,822, filed Jul. 5, 2012, 27 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,232, mailed on Apr. 7, 2011, 51 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/101,398, mailed on Nov. 10, 2011, 58 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/101,398, mailed on Jun. 11, 2012, 56 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,965, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 38 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/787,779, mailed Jan. 12, 2011, 48 pages. |
Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899, filed Jun. 27, 2011, 24 pages. |
Notice of Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Reexamination Request, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 2 pages. |
Ex Parte Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Jul. 18, 2011, 3 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899, mailed Aug. 19, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 9 pages. |
Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Nov. 18, 2011, 8 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Jan. 5, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, 3 pages. |
Final Office Action and Interview Summary for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Mar. 21, 2012, 14 pages. |
Advisory Action for Reexamination Control No. 90/011,760, mailed Jul. 17, 2012, 10 pages. |
Request for Inter Partes Reexamination for U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899 B1, filed Nov. 18, 2011, 153 pages. |
Notice of Inter Partes Reexamination Request Filing Date and Notice of Assignment of Inter Partes Reexamination Request, mailed Nov. 29, 2011, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, 2 pages. |
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,899 and Office Action for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, mailed Feb. 7, 2012, 19 pages. |
Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination (Granted), mailed Apr. 4, 2012, Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requesters Comments under 35 U.S.C. § 314(B)(2) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.947, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 6, 2012, 46 pages. |
Third Party Requesters Refiling of Certificate of Service for Requester Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jun. 21, 2012, 3 pages. |
Third Party Requesters Opposition to Petition to Refuse Entry of Requesters Comments, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, filed Jul. 12, 2012, 5 pages. |
Decision Dismissing Petitions, for Reexamination Control No. 95/001,826, mailed Aug. 22, 2012, 5 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jul. 8, 2011, 6 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Feb. 13, 2012, 85 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Feb. 23, 2012, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed May 18, 2012, 25 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jun. 4, 2012, 22 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Jul. 2, 2012, 7 pages. |
Office Communication for U.S. Appl. No. 13/023,292, mailed Aug. 24, 2012, 8 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/595,952, mailed Nov. 13, 2012, 121 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, Mailed Feb. 27, 2008, 14 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 10/924,552, Mailed May 30, 2008, 18 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Jan. 29, 2010, 8 pages. |
Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Aug. 12, 2010, 20 pages. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,021, mailed Dec. 10, 2010, 20 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/008,321, mailed Nov. 20, 2012, 95 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,390, mailed on Jul. 30, 2012, 45 pages. |
S. Ariyapperuma et al., “Security Vulnerabilities in DNS and DNSSEC,” Second International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES '07), Apr. 2007, 8 pages. |
Cisco Systems, Inc., “Configuring a DRP Server Agent,” Jul. 6, 1999 (updated Oct. 11, 2006), 20 pages. |
Hasenstein, Michael, “IP Address Translation”, http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/HyperNews/get/linus-ip-nat.html, 1997, 50 pages |
Hasenstein, Michael, “Linus IP Network Address Translation”, http://web.archive.org/web/20031209024748/http://www.hastenstein.com/HyperNews/get/linus-ip-nat.html, Dec. 2003, 12 pages. |
Venkataramani, Arun et al.,“A mechanism for background transfers”, Proceedings of the fifth symposium an operating systems design and implementaiton (OSDI'02), 2002, ISBN: 1-931971-06-4, Publisher: USENIX Assoc, Berkeley, CA, USA, Laboratory of Advanced Systems Research, Department of Computer Science, 19 pages. |
Zhou, Tao, “Web Server Load Balancers”, http://windowsitpro.com/print/networking/web-server-load-balancers, Feb. 29, 2000, 7 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110122771 A1 | May 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12177021 | Jul 2008 | US |
Child | 13008321 | US | |
Parent | 10924552 | Aug 2004 | US |
Child | 12177021 | US |