The approaches described in this section could be pursued, but are not necessarily approaches that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated herein, the approaches described in this section are not prior art to the claims in this application and are not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.
In computer networks such as the Internet, packets of data are sent from a source to a destination via a network of elements including links (communication paths such as telephone or optical lines) and nodes (usually routers directing the packet along one or more of a plurality of links connected to it) according to one of various routing protocols.
One class of routing protocol is the link state protocol. The link state protocol relies on a routing algorithm resident at each node. Each node on the network advertises, throughout the network, links to neighboring nodes and provides a cost associated with each link, which can be based on any appropriate metric such as link bandwidth or delay and is typically expressed as an integer value. A link may have an asymmetric cost, that is, the cost in the direction AB along a link may be different from the cost in a direction BA. Based on the advertised information in the form of a link state packet (LSP) each node constructs a link state database (LSDB), which is a map of the entire network topology and from that constructs generally a single optimum route to each available node based on an appropriate algorithm such as, for example, a shortest path first (SPF) algorithm. As a result a “spanning tree” (SPT) is constructed, rooted at the node and showing an optimum path including intermediate nodes to each available destination node. Because each node has a common LSDB (other than when advertised changes are propagating around the network) any node is able to compute the spanning tree rooted at any other node. The results of the SPF are stored in a routing information base (RIB) and based on these results the forwarding information base (FIB) or forwarding table is updated to control forwarding of packets appropriately. When there is a network change an LSP representing the change is flooded through the network, each node sending it to each adjacent node.
As a result, when a data packet for a destination node arrives at a node (the “first node”), the first node identifies the optimum route to that destination and forwards the packet to the next node along that route. The next node repeats this step and so forth.
It will be noted that in normal forwarding each node decides, irrespective of the node from which it received a packet, the next node to which the packet should be forwarded. In some instances this can give rise to a “loop”. In particular this can occur when the databases (and corresponding forwarding information) are temporarily de-synchronized during a routing transition, that is, where because of a change in the network, a new LSP is propagated. As an example, if node A sends a packet to node Z via node B, comprising the optimum route according to its SPF, a situation can arise where node B, according to its SPF determines that the best route to node Z is via node A and sends the packet back. This can continue for as long as the loop remains although usually the packet will have a maximum hop count after which it will be discarded. Such a loop can be a direct loop between two nodes or an indirect loop around a circuit of nodes.
In some circumstances it is desirable to have more control over the route that a packet takes in which case “tunneling” can be used. According to this scheme if a node A receives a packet destined for node Z and for some reason it is desired that the packet should travel via node Y, under normal circumstances node A would have no control over this (unless Y was an adjacent node), as the route is dependent on the forwarding table generated as a result of the SPF at node A and any intermediate nodes as well. However node A can “tunnel” the packet to node Y by encapsulating the received packet within a packet having destination node Y and sending it to node Y which acts as the tunnel end point. When the packet is received at node Y it is decapsulated and Y then forwards the original packet to node Z according to its standard forwarding table. Yet further control is available using directed forwarding in which the encapsulated packet includes a specific instruction as to which neighboring node of the end point of the tunnel the encapsulated packet should be sent, which comprises the “release point”. One well-known type of tunneling is Internet Protocol (IP) tunneling, in which the outer L3 header is an IP header, and the payload that it carries is an IP payload. Examples of such tunneling include Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IP/IP tunneling.
Where a component such as a link or node fails on a network it is desirable to repair the failure for example by routing data packets around the failed component. Zhang Yang and Jon Crowcroft in the paper “Shortest Path First with Emergency Exits” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review Volume 209, Issue 4 (September 1990) propose a solution according to which, for a given destination node an alternative path (AP) is created to the shortest path (SP) for a specified node to the destination using a downstream path (i.e. a path which will get a packet closer to its destination than the current node) identified by calculating whether any of the specified node's neighbor nodes can reach the destination without looping back to the specified node. If, for any destination in the network, an AP is not available, then the specified node sends a message to each of its neighbors to assess whether any of their neighbors can provide a downstream path to the destination. If not then the message is propagated out once again until an “exit” to the destination node is identified, providing a “reverse alternative path” (RAP). The specified node maintains a table, for every destination, of the SP and AP and, where an AP is not available an RAP.
Various problems arise with this approach. First of all because it relies on a signaling protocol in order to establish whether an RAP is available, the process is time- and bandwidth-consuming. Furthermore in order to forward a packet to an exit in an RAP the source has to force it upstream, potentially over a number of hops which requires source routing. As a result an additional protocol is overlaid on the link state protocol and the processing burden of the specified node is also increased.
Another such system is described in co-pending patent application Ser. No. 10/340,371, filed 9 Jan. 2003, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Constructing a Backup Route in a Data Communications Network” of Kevin Miles et al., (“Miles et al.”), the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth herein and discussed in more detail below. According to the solution put forward in Miles et al where a repairing node detects failure of an adjacent component, then the repairing node computes a first set of nodes comprising the set of all nodes reachable according to its protocol other than nodes reachable by traversing the failed component. The repairing node then computes a second set of nodes comprising the set of all nodes from which a target node is reachable without traversing the failed component. The method then determines whether any intermediate nodes exist in the intersection between the first and second sets of nodes or a one-hop extension thereof and tunnels packets for the target node to a tunnel end point comprising a node in the intersection of the first and second sets of nodes. An extension of the approach is described in co-pending patent application Ser. No. 10/442,589, filed 20 May 2003, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Constructing a Transition Route in a Data Communications Network” of Stewart F. Bryant et al., (Bryant et al) the entire contents of which are incorporated by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth herein, and in which the approach is extended to cover repairs for non-adjacent nodes.
Whilst such systems provide rapid network recovery in the event of a failed component, in some instances where multiple or all nodes in a network support the repair strategy, loops can occur. One such instance is where two concurrent unrelated failures take place in the network. In that case a first repairing node adjacent the first failed component will institute its own first repair strategy and forward a packet according to that strategy, relying on the remaining nodes in the repair path using their normal forwarding. If, however, the packet traverses a second repairing node independently repairing around a second failed component, a loop may occur. In particular the second repairing node will have instituted its own second repair strategy differing from normal forwarding and accordingly may return packets from the first repairing node back towards the first repairing node, giving rise to a loop. It will be apparent that such a problem can also arise in the transition route approach described above in Bryant et al and indeed in any case where a repair strategy is distributed across multiple nodes in a network.
In some instances the repair strategies of different nodes may be incompatible, giving rise to loops. This can occur where potential repair paths from a repairing node to a target neighbor node include another neighbor node to the failed component. In that case, traffic repaired to the other neighbor node may loop back towards the repairing node in some instances.