MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks often include various paths that facilitate the flow of traffic from a source device to a destination device. In such MPLS networks, these paths may be identified and/or represented by a sequence of labels that correspond to different portions of the paths. For example, a packet may traverse a traditional MPLS network from a source device to a destination device. Along the way, the packet may arrive at an intermediary node that switches the packet's existing label for another label that corresponds to a subsequent hop within the LSP and then forwards the packet. Since labels are often switched in this way as packets traverse traditional MPLS networks, these paths may be referred to as Label-Switched Paths (LSPs).
LSPs may include and/or represent various nodes within a network. Each of these nodes may maintain and/or program both control plane and data plane state or data for the relevant LSPs. For example, a certain network node may represent a portion of 100,000 LSPs. In other words, 100,000 LSPs may include and/or pass through that network node.
In many traditional configurations, the number of data plane states maintained by a network node may be directly proportional to the number of LSPs that include that network node. In other words, such traditional configurations may require the data plane state to remain directly proportional to the control plane state. For example, in the event that a network node represents a portion of 100,000 LSPs, that network node may need to manage 100,000 different labels in the data plane by creating, updating, and/or deleting such labels when changes occur. As a result, the network node may be adding and/or deleting labels to the data plane on a nearly constant basis.
However, a newer MPLS technology may enable LSPs to share labels such that the number of labels needed to support the MPLS LSPs is reduced significantly. With this newer MPLS technology, rather than maintaining the same number of labels as the number of LSPs in the data plane, each network node may only need to maintain the same number of labels as the number of different next hops included in the LSPs.
As a specific example, the network node that represents a portion of 100,000 LSPs may interface with 10 other nodes that represent portions of those 100,000 LSPs. Rather than maintaining 100,000 labels in the forwarding table of the data plane, the network node may only need to maintain 10 different labels that correspond to the other nodes, thereby drastically reducing resource consumption and/or processing demands. As a result, the network node may be able to manage the labels in the forwarding table of the data plane without needing to perform updates so frequently.
Unfortunately, since the LSPs in this newer MPLS technology share labels, the network nodes included in these LSPs may be unable to provide node protection by way of traditional means. For example, the same label at the network node may correspond to 1,000 LSPs. Some of these LSPs that share the same label at the network node may have different merge points. In other words, in the event that the node identified by the shared label fails, the network node may have access to certain backup paths that merge back onto the LSPs downstream. However, since these LSPs share that label, the network node may be unable to determine which backup path to use for any given LSP in the event of a failure.
The instant disclosure, therefore, identifies and addresses a need for additional apparatuses, systems, and methods for providing node protection in LSPs that share labels.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds