The present application is a national stage filing under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT application number PCT/CN2012/072307, having an international filing date of Mar. 14, 2012, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 201110060251.5, filed Mar. 14, 2011, the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is an Internet Task Force (IETF)-specified mechanism that provides for the designation, routing, forwarding and switching of traffic flows through a network. In a MPLS network, each data packets is assigned a label, and each data packet is directed from one network node to the next based on a short path label, rather than a long network address. Under the MPLS framework, data transmission occurs on Label-Switched Paths (LSPs), and LSPs are a sequence of labels at each and every node along a path from a source to the destination. The labels identify virtual links (paths) between distant nodes rather than endpoints. MPLS can encapsulate packets of various network protocols. MPLS supports a range of access technologies, including T1/E1, ATM, Frame Relay and DSL.
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) is a protocol defined by RFC 5036 of the IETF for the purpose of distributing labels in an MPLS environment. Routers in the MPLS are referred to as label switching routers (LSR) and use LDP to establish LSPs. Routers having an established session are called LDP peers and the exchange of information is bi-directional. LDP is used to build and maintain LSP databases that are used to forward traffic through MPLS networks.
Example of methods and apparatus to implement backup LDPs will be described below by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
Neighbors of an MPLS network typically discover each other as LDP neighbors or peers via one of the following two methods:
After discovering the LDP peers, the LSRs will begin to establish a session, and this process includes the following steps:
An established session is maintained among the LDP peers by unceasingly sending Hello messages and Keepalive messages.
LSP Establishment and Maintenance
The LDP announces among the LDP peers the binding relation between forward equivalent class (FEC) and the labels through sending of label requests and label mapping messages, thereby establishing an LSP. It will be appreciated that FEC is an important concept in MPLS. MPLS is a type of classified forwarding technology, in which packets having the identical characteristics, the identical destination, or the identical service level and so on, are classified as one class and referred to as a FEC. Packets belonging to the same FEC are processed in the identical manner in MPLS networks. For LDP protocol, FEC is divided generally according to the destination address in the network layer of the packets.
Session Revocation
As noted above, an LSR wishing to maintain a neighbouring relationship with a neighbouring LSR will periodically send a Hello message to maintain an LDP session by Hello adjacency. An LDP session will be revoked:
LDP is the most widely used label distribution protocol in MPLS. In a MPLS network, the LDP will usually announce a label to the upstream in a ‘hop by hop’ manner for a FEC, and the path that an established LSP passes through will usually be consistent with an optimal IP route.
An example MPLS network depicted in
This example FEC is 1.1.1.1/24 which is one of the interface addresses of LSR1 and is associated with example label 1024. The LDP designates the label 1024 to that FEC and announces the correspondence between the FEC and the label to an upstream LSR, which is LSR2. LSR2 will in turn designate a label to the FEC and announce the label to its upstream LSR, which can be LSR3, LSR4, or LSR5. Likewise, LSR5 will also designate a label to the FEC and announce the label to its upstream LSR, which is LSR6. In general, the entire label announcement process is performed hop by hop, i.e. device by device, as indicated by the dotted arrows of
As depicted in
The label received from a next hop device of a non-optimal routing is not only recorded in the LDP protocol, but is also used to build in advance a forwarding table entry in the forwarding plane. This forwarding table entry is known as a ‘backup table entry’ and is not used for forwarding under normal conditions. An index to the backup table entry is recorded in a main table entry. When the protected path is broken, traffic will be through a backup path defined in the backup table entry. A protection technique known as the Fast-Reroute (FRR) as defined by Request for Comment (RFC) 4090 is commonly used to provide a local bypass route (‘Backup LSP’) when a failure occurs along a Protected LSP in a MPLS network.
As shown in
As shown by dotted arrow lines in
Another MPLS network depicted in
Initially, it is necessary to determine a link and a LDP session to be protected. This can be done by, for example, designating the LSR ID of a directly connected downstream node, or specified through an access control list. In this example, it is specified on LSR5 that the link to LSR2 is protected. Accordingly, the LDP session between LSR5 and LSR2 is protected.
Upon successfully establishing an LDP session between the LSR5 and LSR2, the LSP will be in the Operational state. If the session is dependent on one or more Hello adjacencies and only the Link Hello type adjacency is present, the Targeted Hello mechanism will be activated to cooperate with the existing Hello adjacencies such that an LSR session will be maintained upon failure of a protected LSP. To activate the Targeted Hello adjacency on LSR5, the Targeted Hello protection mechanism will send a Targeted Hello message to LSR2. LSR2 will accept the Targeted Hello message from LSR5 by configuration, and then respond to LSR5 using Targeted Hello. As a result, adjacencies of a Targeted Hello type are created on LSR5.
So that an LDP session will not be revoked or terminated when there is no longer any Hello adjacency upon failure of when a protected path failed, the Targeted Hello protocol is used to maintain a current LDP session. For example, there is no Hello adjacency when the Link Hello protocol is no longer in effect. In this case, Hello Adjacency is maintained in the control plane to keep alive an LDP session when a protected path fails.
When a protected link is failed or broken, no more Link Hello message will be received. When this happens, an LDP session as well as the forwarding table entry will be maintained by operation of the Targeted Hello protection mechanism. As long as the Targeted Hello messages can be forwarded through other nodes, the LDP session can be maintained, and the corresponding LSP session will not be deleted. On the other hand, if the Targeted Hello messages cannot be forwarded through other nodes, the link fault will bring about a session interruption. As a result, all LSPs established by that session as well as the forwarding table entries will be deleted. In this example, LSR3 or LSR4 is a bypass node to permit passage of the Targeted Hello message when the protected LSP fails. Although the forwarding tables corresponding to the protected LSPs are not deleted, it will be noted that the mere maintaining of an LSP session and the forwarding tables entry is not sufficient, since the protected link is still blocked.
In order to facilitate traffic diversion through the backup path, it will be necessary to establish a relationship between the main protected path and the backup path. The MPLS forwarding table entries in the present disclosure are organised into a forwarding table entry with at least two levels. The first level forwarding table includes unique information of an individual LSP that is associated with the LSR such as outgoing label and include specific information such as the logical output interface ID and is linked to a second level forwarding table. The second level forwarding table contains information which are common to each protected LSP, and include the output interface and next hop of the protected path. In addition, the second level forwarding table also includes a status flag on whether traffic is to flow through the main protected path or the backup path.
How a predefined backup path is set in an MPLS network will be described below with reference to LSR5 of
When a message carrying an example label 1028 is received by LSR5, LSR5 will look for a label forwarding table entry using the incoming label 1028 as a key. The first label forwarding entry on the left side of
In this example, the ‘tunnel interface type’ is an ‘MPLS TE’ type, the third level table that is linked to the second level block is identified by ‘MPLS TE tunnel packaging table entry’, the outgoing label is ‘4049’, the output interface is ‘B’ and the next hop is ‘NH2’.
A tunnel which meets the following criteria can be selected as an appropriate backup path for this example:
It will be appreciated without loss of generality that each tunnel will appear as a “tunnel interface” regardless of the type of tunnel, and the main distinction between different tunnel types is the tunnel packaging. For example, both LDP LSP and MPLS TE tunnels require MPLS tunnel packaging, also known as label, while GRE packaging is required for a GRE tunnel.
It will be noted from the above examples that LSPs of different labels but having a common backup path share the same main block identified as ‘logical output interface table entry’. The common backup path is indicated by the same logical output ID as depicted in
In operation, LSR5 will change the status of the ‘active path flag’ to indicate ‘forwarding of traffic by backup path’ upon detection of failure on the main protected path is detected. To facilitate switching of traffic from the main protected LSP to the backup LSP, the LSR will firstly find the first level table entry with reference to the incoming labels and then locate second-level forwarding table by means of the logical output interface ID of the first level table entry. The path through which traffic will be forwarded will depend on the status of the ‘active path flag’. For example, traffic will be forwarded by the backup path if the status of the ‘active path flag’ indicates ‘forwarding of traffic by backup path’. Alternatively, traffic will be forwarded by the main protected path if the status of the ‘active path flag’ indicates ‘forwarding of traffic by main path’.
It should be noted that the forwarding tables described in the examples above may be stored in a memory of the router (for instance in the forwarding plane).
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2011 1 0060251 | Mar 2011 | CN | national |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/CN2012/072307 | 3/14/2012 | WO | 00 | 7/12/2013 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/122936 | 9/20/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6907039 | Shen | Jun 2005 | B2 |
7130926 | Wu et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7433966 | Charny et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7590048 | Doukai | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7609620 | Raj et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7881183 | Wu et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8040793 | Gao et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8121134 | Rijsman | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8615009 | Ramamoorthi | Dec 2013 | B1 |
20020038259 | Bergman et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20070053359 | Wu | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20080031130 | Raj et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080192762 | Kompella | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20100189115 | Kitada | Jul 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1466832 | Jan 2004 | CN |
101047641 | Oct 2007 | CN |
101106486 | Jan 2008 | CN |
101127718 | Feb 2008 | CN |
101237409 | Aug 2008 | CN |
101369958 | Feb 2009 | CN |
101478474 | Jul 2009 | CN |
101616091 | Dec 2009 | CN |
101667970 | Mar 2010 | CN |
101710899 | May 2010 | CN |
101877677 | Nov 2010 | CN |
102123097 | Jul 2011 | CN |
WO2006034639 | Apr 2006 | WO |
WO-2009077704 | Jun 2009 | WO |
Entry |
---|
CN First Office Action dated May 30, 2013 issued on CN Patent Application No. 201110060251.5 dated Mar. 14, 2011, The State Intellectual Property Office, the P.R. China. |
Extended European Search Report dated Jul. 16, 2014 issued on EP Patent Application No. 12758248.4 dated Mar. 14, 2012, European Patent Office. |
Liu, A et al: “RSVP-TE Graceful Restart under Fast Re-route conditions; draft-liu-mpls-rsvp-te-gr-frr-oo.txt”, Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF; Standard working draft, Internet Society, Oct. 13, 2009, * p. 3, paragraph Section 3 “Problem Statement”—p. 4 * p. 4, paragraph Section 4 “Extensions to RSVP Hello Mes. Handling”—p. 5 *. |
Walsh: “Communication from MPLS Forum on MPLS/Layer 2 control plane interworking; TD 28”, ITU-T Draft Study Period 2001-20014, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva ; CH, vol. Study Group 11, Nov. 11, 2002, pp. 1-23, * p. 20, paragraph “Fault-tolerant PNNI signalling between LERs” *. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 28, 2012 issued on PCT Patent Application No. PCT/CN2012/072307 filed on Mar. 14, 2012, The State Intellectual Property Office, the P.R. China. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140010074 A1 | Jan 2014 | US |