This disclosure relates in general to the field of communications and, more particularly, to probing multiple paths in a network environment.
Ethernet architectures have grown in complexity in recent years. This is due, at least in part, to diverse technologies that have emerged to accommodate a plethora of end users. For example, Data Center Ethernet (DCE) represents an extension to Classical Ethernet (CE), and it can offer a lower cost, lower latency, high-bandwidth configuration. The forwarding methodology adopted by DCE networks is generally scalable and, further, provides forwarding paths with equal-cost multipathing with support for different forwarding topologies. In certain network scenarios, topology information may not be current, accurate, and/or consistent. Optimally probing multiple paths in network topologies presents a significant challenge to system designers, network operators, and service providers alike.
To provide a more complete understanding of the present disclosure and features and advantages thereof, reference is made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying figures, wherein like reference numerals represent like parts, in which:
An example method is provided and can include initiating a probe session at a source network element; identifying multiple paths from the source network element to a destination network element in a network; transmitting packets from the source network element along the multiple paths; compiling a list of network characteristics associated with the multiple paths; and selecting a particular one of the multiple paths for packet routing based on the network characteristics.
In more specific implementations, the method can include revising a previously performed hash based on the network characteristics in order to re-inject particular packets toward the particular one of the multiple paths. In more detailed configurations, the identifying of the multiple paths can further include transmitting specific packets, which have an associated a time-to-live (TTL) value of 1, from the source network element to next-hop network elements; collecting next-hop information at the source network element; and increasing a subsequent TTL value by 1 with a successive transmitting activity until the destination network element is reached.
Note that the network characteristics can include connectivity characteristics, latency characteristics, queuing delay characteristics, quality of service (QoS) characteristics, etc. Additionally, other example scenarios can include inner header values of selected packets being changed in order to route the selected packets along the particular one of the multiple paths. The method can also include changing a port characteristic of selected packets based on the network characteristics such that the selected packets are routed toward the particular one of the multiple paths.
Turning to
Note that link state routing is a protocol that allows a node in a network to determine network topology by sharing information about transmission cost to each of its neighboring nodes. Link state routing packets are transmitted to (and received from) neighbors. The least expensive path to various destinations can be determined using the link state information. Link state information can be used to generate network topology information at various network nodes (e.g., used in constructing forwarding tables). The forwarding tables allow network nodes (such as switches and bridges) to forward the received traffic on an appropriate output interface. In order to generate a network topology map and a forwarding table at a specific node, link state information is distributed from various network nodes. Each network node is configured to create a link state packet having information about the distance, delay, or cost to each of its neighbors. A link state record (LSR) can then be transmitted to neighboring nodes.
DCE networks commonly use a routing protocol (e.g., intermediate system to intermediate system (IS-IS)) for forwarding purposes, where Classic Ethernet (CE) networks commonly use a spanning tree protocol (STP) as their forwarding protocol. In one particular example, DCE network 12 is representative of a Layer 2 multipathing network, which may be executing the IS-IS forwarding protocol. In the illustration of
Network management, and more specifically network monitoring, is useful to manage the performance of networks. Various network-monitoring tools exist to assist in diagnosing and analyzing the health of networks. Pong and Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Ping are two such network diagnostics tools that can assist with detecting network connectivity issues, and that can generate various network measurement metrics (including network latency). There are some notable distinctions between Pong and Ping; Pong can work directly over Layer 2 (e.g., over protocols such as Ethernet), while Ping operates with Layer 3 devices. Pong may also provide fine-grained network monitoring by allowing hop-by-hop latency measurements, as well as the measurement of the intra-chassis delay at every hop. For latency measurements, Pong packets may be timestamped in hardware at ingress and egress ports, whereas Ping packets are processed at the software layer. Since data packets are typically forwarded in hardware in modern Layer 2 or Layer 3 devices, Pong may provide more accurate latency measurements, as encountered by data flowing through a network.
Implementing Pong in a DCE network presents new and additional challenges. Pong is sufficient for Layer 2 protocols such as CE, where forwarding algorithms (such as STP) ensure the existence of only a single distinct forwarding path between any two nodes. Thus, a Pong probe in a CE network can be sent from a source node to a destination node to measure the latency of the path. Since STP does not guarantee efficient utilization of all links available in a network, variants of IP protocols such as IS-IS have been proposed and developed to find multiple Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) between any two nodes in DCE networks. Based on certain hardware configurations, data packets from a source node to a destination node can be hashed and then sent on a specific path.
Typically, a flow is defined based on certain parameters in the data packet headers (e.g., source address, destination address, port etc.), where packets in a flow are hashed and sent along a particular path. These activities pose an interesting dilemma for the Pong protocol. For example, connectivity problems can exist on certain paths, and not be present on others such that when Pong probes are sent out, the architecture cannot find and/or locate the problem on faulty paths. These problematic paths may be currently used by certain flows, whose packets are vulnerable to being dropped, lost, misrouted, etc. To address these shortcomings, extensions to Pong can be provisioned to allow a network-monitoring tool to probe different ECMPs from a source to a destination node, as discussed more fully below.
Note that a similar problem exists with ICMP Ping when there are multiple paths present in the IP network. For example, RFC 4379 provides a mechanism (implemented in [MPLSTrace] in IOS) for testing multiple LSPs between a source and a destination by using a modification of IP traceroute utility, where the router at each hop provides some information on how its downstream paths towards a particular destination can be exercised. Subsequently, the ingress can send MPLS Ping requests that exercise these paths. The idea is based on the concept that forwarding on a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is based on a MPLS label, but exercising multiple paths in the FEC is based on a hash of the source/destination IP and the transport layer source and destination port fields. Such an approach has certain drawbacks that inhibit the performance of the architecture.
Returning to
Turning to
Once the paths are known, the probe packets can be sent along each of those paths (i.e., representing the second stage of the solution). Furthermore, this can entail identifying the connectivity parameters for those paths. The objective in such activities is to ensure that all multipaths are exercised for a given Pong probe session. In the context of routing activities involving a source switch, once a probe session is initiated on the network element (e.g., a source switch), then the source switch would attempt to figure out all the next hops toward the destination IP. Packets can then be sent from the source switch along each of the paths. The source switch can then receive responses from the packets and, subsequently, compile a list of results. The measurements would reflect network characteristics for each of the paths (e.g., the connectivity characteristics, latency characteristics, quality of service (QoS) characteristics, queuing delays, or any other suitable network characteristics that could be used as a basis for executing a routing decision).
This measurement information (i.e., the network characteristics for the paths) is effectively being summarized to offer the user a comprehensive view of the network for that Pong session (e.g., which paths are connected, which paths are suffering latency issues, etc.). Additionally, hashing can be employed to choose the appropriate path using the collected information. For example, the architecture can revise the hash and then re-inject the packet toward an appropriate path. Hence, instead of relying on the internal hardware's capability to make path decisions (e.g., using a hash of the 5-tuple parameters), the architecture can revise the hash (e.g., override the hash using a pre-computed hash) in order to make a more intelligent decision about which path a given packet should take. Additional details relating to these activities are provided below in the context of several network scenarios.
Returning to some of the infrastructure of
Switches 20-28 are network elements that route (or that cooperate with each other in order to route) traffic and/or packets in a network environment. As used herein in this Specification, the term ‘network element’ is used interchangeably with the terms ‘switch’ and ‘node’, and these terms are meant to encompass gateways, switches, routers, bridges, loadbalancers, firewalls, inline service nodes, proxies, servers, processors, modules, or any other suitable device, component, element, or object operable to exchange information in a network environment. The network elements may include any suitable hardware, software, components, modules, interfaces, or objects that facilitate the operations thereof. This may be inclusive of appropriate algorithms and communication protocols that allow for the effective exchange (reception and/or transmission) of data or information.
In operation, Pong multipath modules 34a-b may be configured to coordinate probing multiple paths in DCE network 12. The Pong multipath modules 34a-b can learn multiple paths (e.g., ECMPs) between a source switch (e.g., switch 20) and a destination switch (e.g., switch 22). Further, Pong multipath modules 34a-b can coordinate transmitting Pong probe frames on a desired path, as well as receiving those Pong probe frames. Additionally, Pong multipath modules 34a-b may be configured to facilitate modifying inner header values of Pong probe frames (e.g., the inner destination address and source address) to ensure that Pong probe frames are transmitted on a desired path. Moreover, Pong multipath modules 34a-b may be configured to modify Pong probe frames to add network measurement metrics as those frames flow through a network. Processors 36a-b may execute code stored in memory elements 38a-b and/or assist in any of the switching activities discussed herein.
Note that switches 20-28 may share (or coordinate) certain processing operations. Using a similar rationale, their respective memory elements may store, maintain, and/or update data in any number of possible manners. In a general sense, the arrangement depicted in
Illustrated in
In an example implementation of Pong, transmitting a Pong probe on a path includes transmitting a Pong DSync frame, which is parsed by the hardware of a receiving node. The DSysnc frame can be timestamped at the ingress and egress ports of various nodes, as it flows through the network. A DFollow-Up frame follows the DSync frame and it can be processed by software at each hop. The timestamps incurred by the DSync frames can be added to the DFollow-Up frame. The timestamps stored in hardware can include a signature of the DSync frame, which can be matched to the DFollow-Up frame corresponding to the DSync frame. When the DFollow-Up frame reaches the destination node, a reverse loopback DSync frame and reverse loopback DFollow-Up frame can be generated towards the source node that originated the Pong DSync frame. The reverse DFollow-Up frame may include the timestamps incurred both in the forward and loopback directions.
When a DSync frame is received at an ingress port of a node, the frame may continue to be forwarded through the node hardware or be intercepted and redirected to a supervisor or management module (e.g., the Pong multipath modules of
Using the Pong DSync frame regeneration feature, intermediate nodes may explicitly designate (by modifying the inner header parameters) which next-hop the frame should be forwarded to, if there are multiple next-hops to reach a destination node. Additionally, intermediate nodes may determine the next-hop node independently of the nodes preceding or succeeding it on the path to a destination. This is different from Ping as implemented in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network environments, which requires an intermediate node to choose from a set of destination IP addresses provided to it by the preceding node on the path. Further, MPLS Ping includes the risk of a node not transmitting sufficient destination IP addresses to its downstream neighbor to allow the neighbor to map those IP addresses to its own downstream hops (e.g., not all paths can be probed).
Another advantage of using the Pong DSync frame regeneration feature is that a node may statically compute the inner packet header parameter, which can map to a specific next-hop for a particular destination. The next-hop information can be stored at each node, which will alleviate the need for dynamically simulating the hardware to determine which inner packet header values (provided to a node by an upstream neighbor) would map to certain next-hops (as done in MPLS Ping).
In one instance, probing multiple paths in a DCE network from a source node to a destination node can include querying multiple paths to understand the number of ECMPs from the source node to the destination node. The source node transmits a frame with a time to live (TTL) value equal to 1 to each of the next-hops towards a destination. Each of the next-hops transmits (back to the source) node the number of next-hops it has towards the destination node. The source node transmits another frame with the TTL value increased by 1 to each next-hop node, which transmits the frame to each of its next-hops towards the destination node. This succeeding level of next-hop nodes transmits (back to the source node) the number of next-hops it has towards the destination node. This process can be repeated: increasing the TTL value until the destination node is reached. The process allows a source node to identify specific ECMPs to a destination node that can be probed to measure network measurements. Unlike similar path probing approaches, an advantage of this approach is that intermediate nodes transmit (back to the source node) the number of next-hops available towards a destination node, which minimizes the processing of information by the node.
To probe any specific ECMP, the source node may transmit two frames towards a destination node: a Pong DSync frame and a Pong DFollow-Up frame. The DFollow-Up frame may contain the source route in a type-length-value (TLV) for the particular ECMP the source node seeks to probe. At the next-hop node (and each subsequent intermediate node), the DSync frame is received by the ingress port and may be timestamped. The next-hop node may also receive the DFollow-Up frame with the TLV at its ingress port. Using the TLV in the DFollow-Up frame, the intermediate node may look-up and rewrite the inner frame header values of the DSync frame so that if the DSync frame is put back (e.g., re-injected) at the ingress port, the DSync frame will be transmitted towards the next-hop node provided in the source route (e.g., the route identified in the TLV of the DFollow-Up frame). Once the inner header values of the DSync frame are modified, the DSync frame may be injected back into the ingress port. The DSync frame can then continue through the hardware forwarding. The timestamp information stamped on the DSync frame may be inserted into the DFollow-Up frame, along with the node and port information where the timestamp was performed.
The process can be repeated at the intermediate nodes until the DSync and DFollow-Up frames reach the destination node. Once the frames reach the destination node, the destination node can determine that the DSync and DFollow-Up frames are addressed to it by the outer destination addresses in each frame. A loopback frame may be generated by the destination node and transmitted back to the source node. If measurements of network metrics (e.g., network latency) are merely desired for a specific ECMP from the source node to the destination node, the reverse loopback frame can take any route from the destination node to the source node. When the loopback DSync and DFollow-Up frames reach the source node, the source node can determine (from the outer destination address of each frame) that they are addressed to it. Thus, the source node would not continue to forward the frames in this example. The DFollow-Up frame may carry the timestamp information, as well as the node and port information where the information was collected. The first timestamp record in the DFollow-Up frame can include identification information associated with the source node (i.e., the node that originated the probe). This can allow the source node to recognize the frames as responses to the Pong probe originated by the source node itself.
The described approach allows a source node to probe and collect network measurement metrics for any ECMP to a destination node. Additionally, there are numerous advantages to the described probing approach. As mentioned above, the processing load experienced by intermediate nodes (between a source node and destination node) is minimized during the process of determining the existence of ECMPs. There is minimal computation overhead on the intermediate node to dynamically simulate which of a potentially large set of inner frame header parameters would map to particular next-hops. The parameters used to exercise a particular next-hop for a particular destination can be statically computed. Additionally, unlike MPLS Ping, the described approach can probe all available ECMPs because there is no coupling of parameter choices between nodes.
Additionally, the ability of intermediate nodes to intercept the probe frames at the ingress port and re-inject them into the ingress port after modifying the inner frame headers, allows the probe frames to collect accurate latency measurements. The probe frames can be forwarded through the network and nodes in a fashion similar to that in which data frames are forwarded. As the probe frames are timestamped, metrics associated with the forwarding table programming and multipath hash tables can be measured. Re-injecting probe frames at the ingress port can allow for suitable probing activities, where appropriate metrics associated with inter-chassis delay can be collected.
In addition, some of the example approaches being outlined do not necessarily involve modifying internal system headers (such as Cisco Systems Data Center 3.0 system headers) to force a probe frame being sent out of a specific egress port. Instead, a probe frame can follow the existing hardware forwarding tables, where multipath hashing can be computed, and the result of these processes would systematically transmit the probe frame out of the specific port (towards the next-hop node in a desired source route). Separately, it should be noted that the preceding example embodiments have described implementations within DCE networks. The described approach can equally be implemented in other network architectures that use outer and inner frame headers, where forwarding can be determined by the outer headers, and the ECMPs can be determined by the inner headers. Subsequently, frames can be re-injected into the ingress port and suitably timestamped, as discussed herein.
An additional example embodiment of probing multiple ECMPs can focus on a hardware-based implementation of source routing (e.g., an embodiment that does not necessarily involve transmitting the probe frames to the supervisor (e.g., the Pong multipath modules of FIG. 2)), and/or a supervisor re-injecting the probe frames back into the ingress port. In other instances, some hybrid solution may be provisioned, where that architecture includes various hardware and software aspects, as detail herein.
Turning to
In certain example architectures, a hardware-based source routing embodiment may be implemented by providing (e.g., in a probe frame) the offset information for each next-hop along a desired path. In this manner, each intermediate node does not need to compute the offset to select a particular next-hop based on hashing the flow parameters within a probe frame.
In operation, the source node may transmit control-plane frames to its next-hop neighbors en route to a particular destination node. The neighbors could transmit (back to the source node) the next-hop options for the destination node, along with the offset that selects each of those next-hops. The offset information may be obtained from the unicast Layer 2 routing information base (U2RIB) of the node. The node should maintain the same ordering of the next-hops in the U2RIB as it does in the forwarding information base (FIB) in the multipath table of the node to ensure consistency.
Similar to the previously described embodiment, the source node can transmit control-plane frames to each successive next-hop nodes towards the destination node. The next-hop nodes transmit the offset information of each of its next-hops to the source node. The process can be repeated until the destination node is reached: providing the ECMPs from the source node to the destination node. The source node can collect the returned next-hop information, and may select a specific path to transmit a Pong probe.
TLV 60 of a Pong probe frame can carry the end-to-end route information of a specific path from a source node to a destination node. At each next-hop, the hardware can recognize that the Pong probe frame is source-routed through the type field of the TLV. The length field of the TLV may specify the length in bytes of the TLV. A pointer field may specify (at each receiving intermediate node) the offset to consider to index into that node's multipath table. Each intermediate node can use the specific offset to index into the multipath table for the destination node address provided in the Ethernet header. An alternative implementation to employing a pointer could include using the TTL field of a DCE header. Note that when the maximum number of hops a Pong probe frame takes (to a destination node) is fixed, the source node may put the maximum number of hops in the TTL, before transmitting the Pong probe frames. The hardware at the intermediate nodes can use a value generated by subtracting the current TTL from the maximum number of hops, which allows indexing into the offset list. After finding the label information base (LIB) for the next-hop node from the multipath table, the TTL can be suitably decremented.
Note that a hardware-based approach can have several advantages. First, at each intermediate node along a Pong probe path, there is generally less computational overhead. In certain example implementations, because offsets are contained within the probe frame, an intermediate node would not need to perform hashing to calculate the next-hop. Further, the node would not need to calculate and modify inner header values of the probe frames (e.g., inner source and destination addresses).
Turning to
At 160, responses to the Pong probes can be communicated back to the source node. The responses can be compiled (which is inclusive of aggregating, collecting, summarizing, etc.) in order to identify an appropriate path for particular packets. Hence, a particular one of the paths is selected based on the network characteristics that were selected. These selection activities can include revising a previously performed hash in order to re-inject particular packets toward the particular one of the paths, which was selected based on the network characteristics that were solicited. Those measurements (e.g., the network characteristics associated with latency, connectivity, queuing delay, etc.) can be used as a suitable basis for selecting an appropriate path. In certain cases, these measurements can be part of an algorithm/hash that selects an appropriate path for packets, where other factors could also be considered along with these network characteristics in making this selection.
Note that in certain example implementations, the multipath probing outlined herein may be implemented by logic encoded in one or more tangible media (e.g., embedded logic provided in an ASIC, digital signal processor (DSP) instructions, software (potentially inclusive of object code and source code) to be executed by a processor, or other similar machine, etc.). In some of these instances, a memory element (as shown in
In one example implementation, Pong multipath modules 34a-b include software in order to achieve the multipath probing outlined herein. These activities can be facilitated by switches 20-28, and/or any of the elements of
Note that with the examples provided herein, interaction may be described in terms of two or three elements. However, this has been done for purposes of clarity and example only. In certain cases, it may be easier to describe one or more of the functionalities of a given set of flows by only referencing a limited number of network elements. It should be appreciated that communication system 10 (and its teachings) are readily scalable and can accommodate a large number of clouds, networks, and/or switches, as well as more complicated/sophisticated arrangements and configurations. Accordingly, the examples provided herein should not limit the scope or inhibit the broad teachings of communication system 10 as potentially applied to a myriad of other architectures. Additionally, although described with reference to particular scenarios where Pong multipath modules 34a-b are provided separately, these modules can be consolidated or combined in any suitable fashion, or provided in a single proprietary unit.
It is also important to note that the activities discussed with reference to
Although the present disclosure has been described in detail with reference to particular embodiments, it should be understood that various other changes, substitutions, and alterations may be made hereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. For example, although the present disclosure has been described as operating in networking environments or arrangements, the present disclosure may be used in any communications environment that could benefit from such technology. Virtually any configuration that seeks to intelligently probe multiple network paths and/or switch packets could enjoy the benefits of the present disclosure. Numerous other changes, substitutions, variations, alterations, and modifications may be ascertained to one skilled in the art and it is intended that the present disclosure encompass all such changes, substitutions, variations, alterations, and modifications as falling within the scope of the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4006320 | Markl | Feb 1977 | A |
| 4486877 | Turner | Dec 1984 | A |
| 4569042 | Larson | Feb 1986 | A |
| 4630268 | Rodenbaugh | Dec 1986 | A |
| 4907277 | Callens et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 5010544 | Chang et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5014265 | Hahne et al. | May 1991 | A |
| 5121382 | Yang et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
| 5159592 | Perkins | Oct 1992 | A |
| 5243342 | Kattemalalavadi et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
| 5265092 | Soloway et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
| 5274643 | Fisk | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5321694 | Chang et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5341477 | Pitkin et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5343461 | Barton et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5353283 | Tsuchiya | Oct 1994 | A |
| 5371852 | Attanasio et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
| 5394402 | Ross | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5416842 | Aziz | May 1995 | A |
| 5422876 | Turudic | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5426637 | Derby et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5430715 | Corbalis et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5430727 | Callon | Jul 1995 | A |
| 5450394 | Gruber | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5450449 | Kroon | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5452294 | Natarajan | Sep 1995 | A |
| 5459837 | Caccavale | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5473599 | Li et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5477531 | McKee et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
| 5491692 | Gunner et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5500851 | Kozaki et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5500860 | Perlman et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5509123 | Dobbins et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5519704 | Farinacci et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5521907 | Ennis et al. | May 1996 | A |
| 5555256 | Calamvokis | Sep 1996 | A |
| 5561669 | Lenney et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5563875 | Hefel et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
| 5594732 | Bell et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
| 5602918 | Chen et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5604803 | Aziz | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5617417 | Sathe et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5617421 | Chin et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5621721 | Vantuone | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5623492 | Teraslinna | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5623605 | Keshav et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
| 5642515 | Jones et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5650993 | Lakshman et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5651002 | Van Seters et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5659542 | Bell et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5673265 | Gupta et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5675741 | Aggarwal et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5689566 | Nguyen | Nov 1997 | A |
| 5699478 | Nahumi | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5699485 | Shoham | Dec 1997 | A |
| 5708502 | Denton et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5715399 | Bezos | Feb 1998 | A |
| 5740171 | Mazzola et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5740176 | Gupta et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5742604 | Edsall et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5764636 | Edsall | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5793763 | Mayes et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5812528 | VanDervort | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5819089 | White | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5835494 | Hughes et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5838994 | Valizadeh | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5850388 | Anderson et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5867666 | Harvey | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5870397 | Chauffour et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5870557 | Bellovin et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5884010 | Chen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5894556 | Grimm et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5905871 | Buskens et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5917820 | Rekhter | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918017 | Attanasio et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5918019 | Valencia | Jun 1999 | A |
| 5931961 | Ranganathan et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5943347 | Shepard | Aug 1999 | A |
| 5983265 | Martino, II | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5987011 | Toh | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5991809 | Kriegsman | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6003079 | Friedrich et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6006264 | Colby et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6009081 | Wheeler et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6018516 | Packer | Jan 2000 | A |
| 6023455 | Takahashi | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6023733 | Periasamy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6031846 | Gurusami et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6032194 | Gai et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6041352 | Burdick et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6061454 | Malik et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6070190 | Reps et al. | May 2000 | A |
| 6078590 | Farinacci et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6078956 | Bryant et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
| 6088717 | Reed et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6094562 | Zhong | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6101180 | Donahue et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6104695 | Wesley et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
| 6115711 | White | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6115752 | Chauhan | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6118765 | Phillips | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6118796 | Best et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6185203 | Berman | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6192036 | Buhler et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
| 6230271 | Wadlow et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6252851 | Siu et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6275471 | Bushmitch et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6278687 | Hunneyball | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6286045 | Griffiths et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6317775 | Coile et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
| 6337861 | Rosen | Jan 2002 | B1 |
| 6356545 | Vargo et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6363477 | Fletcher et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
| 6389006 | Bialik | May 2002 | B1 |
| 6445717 | Gibson et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6446121 | Shah et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
| 6510150 | Ngo | Jan 2003 | B1 |
| 6515967 | Wei et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6526044 | Cookmeyer et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6535490 | Jain | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6563796 | Saito | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6578066 | Logan et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6584438 | Manjunath et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6614781 | Elliott et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6628624 | Mahajan et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
| 6665637 | Bruhn | Dec 2003 | B2 |
| 6680921 | Svanbro et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6687225 | Kawari et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6687360 | Kung et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
| 6700874 | Takihiro et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
| 6725191 | Mecayten | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6731609 | Hirni et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6741600 | Weiss et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
| 6757654 | Westerlund et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
| 6765881 | Rajakarunanayake | Jul 2004 | B1 |
| 6775703 | Burns et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6785261 | Schuster et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
| 6798739 | Lee | Sep 2004 | B1 |
| 6804244 | Anandakumar et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
| 6836804 | Jagadeesan | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 6839353 | DeJager | Jan 2005 | B1 |
| 6845091 | Ogier et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
| 6901048 | Wang et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
| 6917983 | Li | Jul 2005 | B1 |
| 6940821 | Wei et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6944132 | Aono et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
| 6947381 | Wen et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
| 7013267 | Huart et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7024257 | Pearce et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7039716 | Jagadeesan | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7047190 | Kapilow | May 2006 | B1 |
| 7068607 | Partain et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7069034 | Sourour | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7072968 | Mikami et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
| 7099820 | Huart et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
| 7133368 | Zhang et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7143184 | Shah et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
| 7212517 | Dzik | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7283474 | Bergenwall | Oct 2007 | B1 |
| 7286467 | Sylvain | Oct 2007 | B1 |
| 7289454 | Bovo et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7310334 | FitzGerald et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7336620 | Bennett | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7352700 | Chan et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7352705 | Adhikari et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
| 7406034 | Cometto et al. | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7417993 | Ebergen et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
| 7426577 | Bardzil et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7457877 | Shah et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
| 7483370 | Dayal et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
| 7496044 | Wing | Feb 2009 | B1 |
| 7519006 | Wing | Apr 2009 | B1 |
| 7564858 | Moncada-Elias et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7643430 | Morandin | Jan 2010 | B2 |
| 7660314 | Wybenga et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7672227 | Santoso et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
| 7729267 | Oran et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7760735 | Chen et al. | Jul 2010 | B1 |
| 7817580 | Jain et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7864712 | Khan et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7870611 | Ishikawa | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7886080 | Sajassi et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
| 7944470 | Foster et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
| 7969894 | Mangal | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 8065317 | Wang et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8116213 | Krygowski | Feb 2012 | B2 |
| 8174996 | Omar | May 2012 | B2 |
| 8244909 | Hanson et al. | Aug 2012 | B1 |
| 8291077 | I'Anson | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 20020003775 | Nakano et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
| 20020067693 | Kodialam et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020073375 | Hollander | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020083186 | Stringer | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20030053419 | Kanazawa et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030072269 | Teruhi et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097438 | Bearden et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030110276 | Riddle | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030137972 | Kowalewski et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030142680 | Oguchi | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20030163772 | Jaworski | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030165114 | Kusama et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030208616 | Laing et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030219022 | Dillon et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030220971 | Kressin | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20030225549 | Shay et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040008715 | Barrack et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040052257 | Abdo et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073690 | Hepworth et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040114539 | Beshai et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20040125965 | Alberth et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040170163 | Yik et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040184323 | Mori et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040193709 | Selvaggi et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040218617 | Sagfors | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040223458 | Gentle | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040240431 | Makowski et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040252646 | Adhikari et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050036519 | Balakrishnan et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050105474 | Metzler | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050111487 | Matta et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050117576 | McDysan et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050152406 | Chauveau | Jul 2005 | A2 |
| 20050216599 | Anderson et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050220123 | Wybenga et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050226172 | Richardson | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050243733 | Crawford et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050246041 | Kreifeldt et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050259597 | Benedetto et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283639 | Le Pennec et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050286419 | Joshi et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050286436 | Flask | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060018333 | Windisch et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060041431 | Maes | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060098586 | Farrell et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060104217 | Lehane | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060104306 | Adamczyk et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060112400 | Zhang et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060122835 | Huart et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060133286 | Elie-Dit-Cosaque et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060140136 | Filsfils et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060159029 | Samuels et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20060179338 | Sumner | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060215684 | Capone | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060250967 | Miller et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060268742 | Chu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060274760 | Loher | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060280130 | Nomura et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060291385 | Yang | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070041335 | Znamova et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070058571 | Rose | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070064616 | Miranda | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070107034 | Gotwals | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070127395 | Jain et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070150480 | Hwang et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070153774 | Shay et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070171835 | Gobara et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070204017 | Maes | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070212065 | Shin et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070223462 | Hite et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070258359 | Ogasawara et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070263554 | Finn | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070286165 | Chu et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080019282 | Alaria et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080031149 | Hughes et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080031154 | Niazi et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20090022069 | Khan et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090028044 | Windisch et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090059800 | Mohan | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090080334 | DeCusatis et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125595 | Maes | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090144403 | Sajassi et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090175274 | Aggarwal et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090193057 | Maes | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090201937 | Bragg et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090219823 | Qian et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090219836 | Khan et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090274153 | Kuo et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090296588 | Nishi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090328051 | Maes | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100049826 | Maes | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100061254 | Thottakkara et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100061269 | Banerjee et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100069052 | Ahomaki et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100182937 | Bellagamba | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100189118 | Nonaka | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100226244 | Mizutani et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
| 20100302936 | Jan et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
| 20110019678 | Mehta et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110134804 | Maes | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20120106339 | Mishra et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO 2008010918 | Jan 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009014967 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/152,300, filed Jun. 2, 2011, entitled “System and Method for Managing Network Traffic Disruption,” Inventor(s): Shekher Bulusu, et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,957, filed Jun. 15, 2011, entitled “System and Method for Providing a Loop Free Topology in a Network Environment,” Inventor(s): Shekher Bulusu, et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/297,882, filed Dec. 7, 2005, entitled “Preventing Transient Loops in Broadcast/Multicast Trees During Distribution of Link State Information,” Inventor: Sachin Jain. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/378,990, filed Mar. 17, 2006, entitled “Preventing Transient Loops in Broadcast/Multicast Trees During Distribution of Link State Information,” Inventor: Sachin Jain. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/490,806, filed Jul. 20, 2006, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Improved Determination of Network Metrics,” Inventor: Valentina Alaria. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/880,322 filed Jul. 20, 2007, entitled “Preventing Loops in Networks Operating Different Protocols to Provide Loop-Free Topology,” Inventor: Tameen Khan. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/475,124, filed May 29, 2009, entitled “Transient Loops Prevention in a Hybrid Layer-2 Network,” Inventor: Saurabh Jain. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/658,503, filed Feb. 5, 2010, entitled “Fault Isolation in Trill Networks,” Inventor(s): Ali Sajassi et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,763, filed Nov. 1, 2010, entitled “Probing Specific Customer Flow in Layer-2 Multipath Networks,” Inventor(s): Chandan Mishra et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237, filed Nov. 2, 2010, entitled “System and Method for Providing Proactive Fault Monitoring in a Network Environment,” Inventor(s): Chandan Mishra, et al. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881, filed Nov. 8, 2010, entitled “System and Method for Providing a Loop Free Topology in a Network Environment,” Inventor: Shekher Bulusu. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/041,148, filed Mar. 4, 2011, entitled “System and Method for Managing Topology Changes in a Network Environment,” Inventor: Shekher Bulusu. |
| Wikipedia, “IEEE 802.1ag,” Connectivity Fault Management, retrieve and printed Nov. 2, 2010, 4 pages; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE—802.1ag. |
| G. Malkin, “Traceroute Using an IP Option,” Network Working Group, RFC 1393, Jan. 1993, 8 pages; http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc1393.pdf. |
| K. Kompella and G. Swallow, “Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures,” Network Working Group, RFC 4379, Feb. 2006, 52 pages; http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc4379.pdf. |
| PCT “International Preliminary Report on Patentability, Date of Issuance Jan. 20, 2009 (1 page), Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, Date of Mailing Feb. 7, 2008 (6 pages) and International Search Report, Date of Mailing Feb. 7, 2008 (2 pages),” for PCT/US2007/015506. |
| PCT “International Preliminary Report on Patentability (dated Jan. 26, 2010; 1 page) and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority and International Search Report (dated Oct. 2, 2008; 7 pages),” for PCT International Application PCT/US2008/070243. |
| IEEE Standards Department, “Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks—Amendment 6: Provider Backbone Bridges—IEEE P802.1ah/D4.2,” ©2008, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Mar. 26, 2008; 116 pages. |
| USPTO Aug. 26, 2013 Response to Jun. 20, 2013 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/041,148. |
| USPTO Jul. 5, 2013 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/152,200. |
| USPTO Jun. 13, 2013 RCE Response to Mar. 26, 2013 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237. |
| USPTO Jul. 19, 2013 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237. |
| USPTO Aug. 6, 2013 RCE Response to May 8, 2013 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,957. |
| Callon et al., “A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching,” IETF Network Working Group, Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-framework-02.txt, Nov. 21, 1997. |
| Deering, S., et al., “Internet Protocol Version 6,” RFC 1883, Dec. 1995. |
| Feldman, N., “ARIS Specification,” Internet Draft, Mar. 1997. |
| Gobrial, Margret N., “Evaluation of Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Version 4(V4) in the Tactical Environment,” Military Communications Conference, Oct. 21-24, 1996; Abstract Only http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=569372&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel3%2F4198%2F12335%2F00569372.pdf%3Farnumber%3D569372. |
| Halabi, Bassam, Internet Routing Architectures (CISCO), Macmillan Technical Publishing, Apr. 23, 1997; Abstract and Table of Contents only. http://www.ciscopress.com/store/internet-routing-architectures-cisco-9781562056520. |
| Handley and V. Jacobson, “SDP: Session Description Protocol,” RFC 2327; Apr. 1998, 43pgs. |
| Heinanen, J., “Multiprotocol Encapsulation over ATM Adaptation Layer 5,” RFC 1483, Jul. 1993. |
| IEEE Standards Department, “Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks—Amendment 9: Shortest Path Bridging—IEEE P802.1aq/D2.1,” ©2009, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Aug. 21, 2009; 208 pages. |
| Jennings, C., “NAT Classification Test Results,” Internet Draft draft-jennings-behave-test-results-02draft-jennings-behave-test-results-02.txt, Jun. 25, 2006. |
| Katsube, Y. et al., “Toshiba's Router Architecture Extensions for ATM: Overview,” RFC 2098, Feb. 1997. |
| Kessler, G., “Chapter 2.2 PING of TCP: A Primer on Internet and TCP/IP Tools,” RFC 1739; Dec. 1994; www.ietf.org. |
| Laubach, M., “Classical IP and ARP over ATM,” RFC 1577, Jan. 1994. |
| Laubach, M., “IP over ATM Working Group's Recommendations for the ATM Forum's Multiprotocol BOF Version 1,” RFC 1754, Jan. 1995. |
| Liao et al., “Adaptive Recovery Techniques for Real-time Audio Streams,” IEEE INFOCOM2001; Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the Iee Computer and Communications Societies Proceedings, Apr. 22-26, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 815-823. |
| McGovern, M., et al., “CATNIP: Common Architecture for the Internet,” RFC 1707, Oct. 1994. |
| Nagami, K., et al., “Toshiba's Flow Attribute Notification Protocol (FANP) Specification,” RFC 2129, Apr. 1997. |
| Newman, P. et al., “Ipsilon Flow Management Protocol Specification for IPv4 Version 1.0,” RFC 1953, May 1996. |
| Newman, P. et al., “Ipsilon's General Switch Management Protocol Specification Version 1.1,” RFC 1987, Aug. 1996. |
| Niccolini, S., et al. “How to store traceroute measurements and related metrics,” Internet Draft draft-niccolini-ippm-storetraceroutes-02.txe., Oct. 24, 2005. |
| PCT Feb. 7, 2008 International Search Report for PCT/US2007/015506. |
| Perez, M., et al., “ATM Signaling Support for IP over ATM,” RFC 1755, Feb. 1995. |
| Perlman, et al., “Rbridges: Base Protocol Specification,” IETF Draft, Jan. 2009. |
| Perlman, Radia, “Rbridges: Transparent Routing,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Mar. 2004. |
| Rosen et al., “A Proposed Architecture for MPLS,” IETF Network Working Group, Internet Draft draft-ietf-mpls-arch-00.txt, Aug. 1997. |
| Rosen et al., “MPLS Label Stock Encoding,” RFC 3032, Jan. 2001. |
| Rosenberg et al., “STUN—Simple Traversal of User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Through Network Address Translators (NATs),” Network Working Group, RFC 3489, Mar. 2003, 44 pgs. |
| Schulzrinne, H., et al., “RTP, A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications,” Network Working Group RFC3550, Jul. 2003, 98 pages. |
| Smith, Bradley R., et al., “Securing the Border Gateway Routing Protocol,” Global Telecommunications Conference, Nov. 18-22, 1996. |
| Touch, et al., Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability Statement, RFC 5556, IETF, May 2009. |
| Townsley, et al., “Layer Two Tunneling Protocol, L2TP,” Network Working Group, RFC 2661, Aug. 1999, 75 pages. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/152,200, filed Jun. 2, 2011, entitled “System and Method for Managing Network Traffic Disruption,” Inventor(s): Shekher Bulusu, et al. |
| Ullman, R., “Rap: Internet Route Access Protocol,” RFC 1476, Jun. 1993. |
| USPTO Apr. 2, 2013 Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 7, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,957. |
| USPTO May 24, 2013 RCE Response to Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO May 24, 2013 Supplemental Response to Final Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2013 from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO May 8, 2013 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,957. |
| USPTO Jun. 14, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO Jun. 20, 2013 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/041,148. |
| Viswanathan et al., “ARIS: Aggregate Route-Based IP Switching,” Internet Draft, Mar. 1997. |
| Wang, Q. et al., “TCP-Friendly Congestion Control Schemes in the Internet,” National Key Lab of Switching Technology and Telecommunication Networks, Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications; 2001, pp. 211-216; http://www.sics.se/˜runtong/11.pdf. |
| Woundy et al., “ARIS: Aggregate Route-Based IP Switching,” Internet Draft draft-woundy-aris-ipswitching-00-txt, Nov. 1996. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/653,814, filed Oct. 17, 2012, entitled “System and Method for Tracking Packets in a Network Environment,” Inventor: Wei-Jen Haung. |
| USPTO Sep. 25, 2012 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO Dec. 11, 2012 Response to Sep. 25, 2012 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO 2012-26 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/941,881. |
| USPTO Dec. 26, 2012 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237. |
| USPTO Feb. 22, 2013 Response to Nov. 26, 2012 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237. |
| USPTO Mar. 26, 2013 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 12/938,237. |
| USPTO Jan. 7, 2013 Non-Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 13/160,957. |
| “Cisco Nexus 7000 F1 Series 32-Port 1 and 10 Gigabit Ethernet Module,” Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Apr. 2013, 7 pages Cisco Nexus 7000 Series 32—Port 1 and 10 Gigabit Ethernet Module Data Sheet. |
| “Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Documentation Roadmap for NX-OS, Release 5.2,” Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Aug. 16, 2011, 4 pages Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Documentation Roadmap for NX-OS, Release 5.2. |
| “Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-05 Troubleshooting Guide—Troubleshooting Tools and Methodology,” ©1992-2012 Cisco Systems, Inc.; 26 pages http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Cisco—Nexus—7000—Series—NX-OS—Troubleshooting—Guide—--—Troubleshooting—Tools—and—Methodology#Using—Pong. |
| “Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-0S Release Notes, Release 5.2,” Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA, Sep. 19, 2012; 120 pages Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-OS Release Notes, Release 5.2. |
| “Cisco Nexus 7000 Series NX-OS System Management Configuration Guide, Release 5.x,” Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Dec. 2011, 386 pages http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/datacenter/sw/5—x/nx-os/system—management/configuration/guide/sm—nx-os.pdf. |
| “Cisco Nexus Software Release 5.2 for Cisco Nexus 7000 Series Switches,” Product Bulletin, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, Ca, Jun. 2012, 7 pages. |
| Andreasan et al., “RTP No-Op Payload Format,” Internet Draft, Internet Engineering Task Force, Feb. 2004, pp. 1-8. |
| Cheng, Jin et al., “Fast TCP: Motivation, Architecture, Algorithms, Performance,” Aug. 2, 2004, 44 pages. |
| Cisco White Paper, “Network Health Framework: A Proactive Approach,” Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Feb. 2010, 8 pages http://www.cisco.com/en/US/services/ps6889/Cisco—NHFWhitePaper.pdf. |
| Eidson, John, “IEEE-1588 Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measurement and Control Systems,” Agilent Technologes, Inc., Nov. 10, 2005, 94 pages; http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/ieee/upload/tutorial-basic.pdf. |
| Fedyk, D., et al., ISIS Extensions Supporting IEEE 802.1aq Shortest Path Bridging, Network Working Group Internet Draft, Mar. 8, 2011, 42 pages; http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-isis-ieee-aq-05. |
| Hirschmann Automation and Control GmbH, White Paper, “Precision Clock Synchronization, The Standard IEEE 1588,” Rev. 1.2, 20 pp.; [retrieved and printed Mar. 19, 2013] http://www.belden.com/pdfs/Techpprs/Precision—Clock—Synchronization—WP.pdf. |