DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. -Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17 Applicant argued that the combination does not disclose
“"adding a second LSP" representing a "dedicated path consisting of the first link," (ii) "a third LSP" representing a "dedicated path consisting of the second link" to "a set of LSPs associated with a [reservation routing protocol]," and (iii) "adding, to the set of LSP records" representing "bandwidth information associated with the dedicated path[s] represented by the set of LSPs," a second LSP record representing "bandwidth information .... determined based on [the first link's] bandwidth measure" and a third LSP record representing "bandwidth information .... determined based on [the second link's] bandwidth measure. "Additionally, a TED does not "represent bandwidth information associated with the dedicated path[s] represented by [a] set of LSPs."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Torvi in fig. 1, [0019], [0030-0032] discloses LSP 20 that is for non-reservation protocol and LSPs 22A and 22B (set of LSPs) that uses reservation protocol. For instance, the links 18H and 18Q (first and second link respectively) are used by both non-reservation protocol LSP 20 and reservation protocol LSP 22A. The data structure that associates each link in corresponding LSP corresponds to LSP record. Links 18H and 18Q are associated with LSP record of LSP 20 and LSP 22A both corresponding to non-reservation protocol and reservation protocol respectively. The claim limitations recites merely data structure of LSP and link information. The claim recites second LSP as first link (18H) and 3rd LSP as second link (link 18Q). However, each link can be LSP. Further [0030-00032] discloses when both non-reservation LSP and reservation LSP are used together, using BW usage information of the non-reservation protocol LSP to determine the BW available for reservation protocol LSP. That is similar to the nexus of the invention. The system is fully capable of associating and recording data structure associating links to LSP. LSPs to LSP records with corresponding bandwidth as indicated in [0007], [0030-0032] and more.
Torvi in [0007] discloses techniques described are for bandwidth sharing between resource reservation protocol label switched paths (LSPs) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. For example, in networks where resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) information (LSP record of bandwidth corresponding to respective resource reservation protocol LSP and non-resource reservation protocol LSP) about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. The database corresponds to LSP record.
Torvi further in [0047] discloses routing component 44 may include a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) 82 for storing e.g., path information for resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. In some examples, TED 82 may include reservable bandwidth data 84 that indicates the percentage of reservable bandwidth for resource reservation protocol LSPs for each interface of router 40. As described below, when computing paths for resource reservation LSPs, router 40 may rely on updated TED information to provide an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth available for resource reservation protocol LSPs per interface. TED 82 may be in the form of a variety of data structures, such as link lists (allocation information for each links). The bandwidth allocation record of each link associated with reservation protocol and non-reservation protocol corresponds to a bandwidth reservation measure associated with link. The mere adding of LSPs to respective LSP record of reservation protocol and non-reservation protocol is taught in the art. As indicate above, Torvi is about
Torvi further in [0019] discloses routers 12 may use a resource reservation protocol such as the Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering extensions (RSVP-TE) to establish RSVP-TE LSPs, such as RSVP-TE LSP 22A, 22B (collectively, RSVP-TE LSPs 22″) that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B. Routers 12 may also use non-resource reservation protocol mechanisms, e.g., non-RSVP mechanisms such as segment routing techniques and/or the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24 that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B, for example. In the example of FIG. 1, segment routing LSP 20, LDP LSP 24, and RSVP-TE LSPs 22 are established across one or more of links 18A-18X (“links 18”) using segment routing techniques, LDP protocol, and RSVP-TE protocol, respectively. When the network is composed of nodes only one hop nodes, the TED record or bandwidth reservation record for the RSVP-TE (resource reservation protocol) link such as link 22a and SR (non-reservation protocol) link such as link 22 corresponds to the one hop link.
RFC8426 further discloses the second protocol based on the second LSP and the third LSP (introduction) discloses Introduction of SR in the same network domain as RSVP-TE [RFC3209] presents the problem of accounting for SR traffic and making RSVP-TE aware of the actual available bandwidth on the network links. RSVP-TE is not aware of how much bandwidth is being consumed by SR services on the network links and hence both at computation time (for a distributed computation) and at signaling time RSVP-TE LSPs will Incorrectly place loads. This is true where RSVP-TE paths are distributed or centrally computed without a common entity managing both SR and RSVP-TE computation for the entire network domain...3.5. TED consistency by reflecting SR traffic The solution relies on dynamically measuring SR traffic utilization on each TE interface and reducing the bandwidth allowed for use by RSVP-TE... At every interval T, each node should collect the SR traffic statistics for each of its TE interfaces. Further, at every interval N, given a configured SR traffic threshold percentage and a set of collected 5R traffic statistics samples across the interval N, the SR traffic average (or any other traffic metric depending on the algorithm used) over this period Is calculated…value MUST be undated: o New Maximum-Reservable-Bandwidth = Current Maximum-Reservable- Bandwidth - (SR traffic average * M} that corresponds RSVP-TE LSP value and this value determined for a first and second consecutive links corresponds to the second and the third LSP values associated with the corresponding links each. Using these values to select consecutive links and build path having resource reservation in RSVP-TE taking In to consideration of the 5R bandwidth utilization (resource utilization of each links) corresponds to determining. if the path has 2 links, the RSVP-TE LSP for each fink in the path determined as indicated above corresponds to the first and the second LSP).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 and 17 and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torvi (US pg. no. 20180006948), further in view of “Recommendations for RSVP-TE and segment Routing LSP co-existence draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-00”, herein after RFC8426.
Regarding claim 1. Torvi discloses a method comprising:
identifying a first label-switched path (LSP) record associated with a first protocol (fig. 1 LSP 20 between router 12A and router 12C. Establishing and storing the LSP 20 and identifying it corresponds to identifying) , wherein: (i) the first protocol is a non-reservation routing protocol, and (ii) the first LSP record is associated with a first LSP that uses a first link and a second link in a network (fig. 1 discloses LSP 20 (first LSP) uses links between router 12A and router 12C(first link) and link between router 112C and router 12D (second link). Establishing and storing the LSP 20 corresponds storing the LSP record to be identified; [0019] for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing (first protocol) LSP 20 (first label-switched path (LSP) record associated with a first protocol) and/or LDP (another non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol)) LSP 24 that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B, for example. In the example of FIG. 1, segment routing LSP 20 (LSP associated with first protocol), are established across one or more of links 18A-18X (comprises the first and the second link in “links 18”) using segment routing techniques. Although the example of FIG. 1 is shown with SR LSP and LDP LSP, routers 12 may use other non-resource reservation protocols (e.g., the Border Gateway Protocol Labeled Unicast (BGP-LU)) and/or static LSPs to establish a non-resource reservation protocol LSP);
determining a first bandwidth reservation measure for the first link (fig. 1 link 18A) in relation to the first protocol ([0007] discloses techniques described are for bandwidth sharing between resource reservation protocol label switched paths (LSPs) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. For example, in networks where resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) information about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization (first bandwidth reservation measure). Path computation elements may thus rely on an accurate TED for LSP path computation; [0025-0028] and [0032] discloses when non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs are placed in the same network domain as resource reservation protocol (second protocol) LSPs, inaccuracies may be introduced in the TED (LSP record storage) used by resource reservation protocol path computation elements, such as controller 30 or ingress router 12A. For example, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths (RSVP-TE LSP paths) may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. [0026] to solve the above problem, In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 or LDP LSP 24) from each interface (resource reservation measure that is resource (bandwidth) utilization value by the non-resource reservation protocol LSP (see [0042-0043] of the instant application)) of ingress router 12A…[0027] In some examples, system 10 may include a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22. Controller 30 may include a bandwidth subscription manager 80 for comparing traffic statistics on interfaces of ingress routers such as router 12A to a pre-defined threshold to trigger an adjustment of percentage of reservable bandwidth available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on particular interfaces if traffic flow statistics from non-RSVP LSPs has met the threshold. [0028] For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may receive a set of traffic flow statistics 32 from ingress router 12A, and computes an average from the set of traffic flow statistics (determining first reservation measure associated with resource utilization of the SR protocol for SR LSP 20)…If the threshold is met on an interface, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may send an adjustment instruction 34 instructing ingress router 12A to modify percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for corresponding interfaces of ingress router 12A…[0032] Bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compare a pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold with the average of segment routing LSP 20 traffic flow. As one example, the pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold may establish an upper boundary of 15 percent bandwidth utilization. In response to determining that the 20 percent bandwidth utilization (first reservation measure) by segment routing LSP 20 has met a configured threshold for non-RSVP LSP bandwidth 15 percent, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may cause ingress router 12A to adjust percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for an interface of ingress router 12A associated with link 18A. For example, in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A; [0060] and fig. 4, 92 discloses bandwidth subscription manager may receive traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs from each interface of ingress router 12A (92). As one example, a network administrator may configure an ingress router 12A to periodically collect an amount of network traffic, e.g., packet and byte statistics (bandwidth reservation measure that in light of the instant application in [0042-43] corresponds to bandwidth utilization by the device using the first protocol), forwarded on a non-resource reservation protocol LSP, e.g., segment routing LSP 20).
determining a second bandwidth reservation measure for the second link in relation to the first protocol(fig. 1 discloses both SR LSP 20 (first non-resource reservation protocol LSP) and RSVP-TE LSP 24 (second resource reservation protocol LSP) are co-existing the links 18A (first link), 18D (second link), 18H, 18Q, and 18W connecting routers 12A, 12C, 12D, 12H, 12L and 12B respectively; [0025-0028] and [0032] discloses when non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs are placed in the same network domain as resource reservation protocol (second protocol) LSPs, inaccuracies may be introduced in the TED (LSP record storage) used by resource reservation protocol path computation elements, such as controller 30 or ingress router 12A. For example, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths (RSVP-TE LSP paths) may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. [0026] to solve the above problem, In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 or LDP LSP 24) from each interface (resource reservation measure that is resource (bandwidth) utilization value by the non-resource reservation protocol LSP (see [0042-0043] of the instant application)) of ingress router 12A…[0027] In some examples, system 10 may include a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22. Controller 30 may include a bandwidth subscription manager 80 for comparing traffic statistics on interfaces of ingress routers such as router 12A to a pre-defined threshold to trigger an adjustment of percentage of reservable bandwidth available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on particular interfaces if traffic flow statistics from non-RSVP LSPs has met the threshold. [0028] For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may receive a set of traffic flow statistics 32 from ingress router 12A, and computes an average from the set of traffic flow statistics (determining first reservation measure associated with resource utilization of the SR protocol for SR LSP 20)…If the threshold is met on an interface, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may send an adjustment instruction 34 instructing ingress router 12A to modify percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for corresponding interfaces of ingress router 12A…[0032] Bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compare a pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold with the average of segment routing LSP 20 traffic flow. As one example, the pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold may establish an upper boundary of 15 percent bandwidth utilization. In response to determining that the 20 percent bandwidth utilization (that corresponds to first bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured for link 18A of LSP 20 of fig 1 and second bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured on link 18D of LSP 20 of fig. 1) by segment routing LSP 20 has met a configured threshold for non-RSVP LSP bandwidth 15 percent, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may cause ingress router 12A to adjust percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations (that correspond to third bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 on the link 18A that is between router 12A and router 12C of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization measure of link 18A (first bandwidth utilization measure) or fourth bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 when considering link 18D that is between router 12C and router 12D of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization of link 18D (second bandwidth utilization measure) respectively) for an interface of ingress router 12A associated with link 18A. For example, in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The above step is performed on router 12A for link 18A between router 12A and router 12C. See fig. 1 where In that link, link 18A, 3 LSPS such as: LSP20 of SR LSP, LSP 24 of LDP LSP (where both protocol SR and LDP are non-resource reservation protocols with corresponding LSPs), and LSP 22 of RSVP-TE LSP that is LSP for resource reservation protocol. The above step are done to determine RSVP-TE LSP reservable resource to link 18A. Similar steps can be performed on subsequent links, link 18D, connecting router 12C and router 12D in the path where similar steps can be performed for link 18D (second link) by router 12C that corresponds to determining second bandwidth reservation measure (bandwidth utilization value) for link 18D of utilizing an non-reservation protocol (SR or LDP protocol)).
identifying a set of LSPs associated with a second protocol (fig. 1 and [0019] discloses LSP 20A and LSP 20B are associated with RSVP-TE), wherein: (i) the second protocol is a reservation routing protocol, and (ii) each LSP of the set of LSPs represents a dedicated path associated with the network ([0019] and fig. 1 discloses fig. 1 and [0019] discloses LSP 20A and LSP 20B (paths) are associated with RSVP-TE (second protocol);
identifying a set of LSP records associated with the set of LSPs, wherein each LSP record of the set of LSP records represents bandwidth information associated with the dedicated path represented by a respective LSP of the set of LSPs ([0030] In the example of FIG. 1, non-RSVP LSPs, e.g., segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24, may be established in network 14 to co-exist with RSVP-TE LSPs 22. For example, ingress router 12A may include an interface associated with link 18A for RSVP-TE LSPs 22, segment routing LSP 20, and LDP LSP 24… [0031] In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may periodically (e.g., every 10 seconds, every minute, etc.) collect traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP 20 on each interface associated with link 18A. In one example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may receive a set of the traffic flow statistics from ingress router 12A, including packet and byte statistics corresponding to traffic flow of segment routing LSP 20… For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compute an average of 20 percent bandwidth utilization by segment routing LSP 20…[0032] in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The record that shows bandwidth information for each LSP, LSP 20 being 20% and RSVP-TE LSP 80% corresponds to LSP record of the set of LSPs);
based on identifying the first LSP record, adding a second LSP and a third LSP to the set of LSPs, wherein: (i) the dedicated path associated with the second LSP consists of the first link, and (ii) the dedicated path associated with the third LSP consists of the second link (fig. 1 discloses LSP 20 non-reservation protocol LSP having plurality of links. LSPO 22A and 22B (reservation protocol LSP having plurality of links. The record comprising link information and bandwidth information of each LSP corresponds to record. The system is fully capable of adding any new LSP comprising different links to be added to the record; [0030-0032] In the example of FIG. 1, non-RSVP LSPs, e.g., segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24, may be established in network 14 to co-exist with RSVP-TE LSPs 22. For example, ingress router 12A may include an interface associated with link 18A for RSVP-TE LSPs 22, segment routing LSP 20, and LDP LSP 24… [0031] In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may periodically (e.g., every 10 seconds, every minute, etc.) collect traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP 20 on each interface associated with link 18A. In one example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may receive a set of the traffic flow statistics from ingress router 12A, including packet and byte statistics corresponding to traffic flow of segment routing LSP 20… For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compute an average of 20 percent bandwidth utilization by segment routing LSP 20…[0032] in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The record that shows bandwidth information for each LSP, LSP 20 being 20% and RSVP-TE LSP 80% corresponds to LSP record of the set of LSPs. As indicated above Reserving reservation protocol LSP BW comprises identifying BW records that are associated with non-reservation protocol LSP );
based on adding the second LSP to the set of LSPs associated with the second protocol, adding, to the set of LSPS (fig. 1 LSPs 22A, and 22B corresponds to set of LSPs) a second LSP record associated with the second protocol (fig. 1 and [0019] discloses RSVP-TE LSP ), wherein bandwidth information represented by the second LSP record is associated with the dedicated path represented by the second LSP and represents a third bandwidth reservation measure that is determined based on the first bandwidth reservation measure,(fig. 1 discloses reservation protocol LSP 22A and 22B and non-reservation protocol LSP 20. Any new LSP corresponding to reservation LSP or non-reservation LSP can be added to the system and the data structure stored representing the LSP corresponds to record. The system is fully capable of adding or deleting LSP in the system and storing the data structure to any added LSP( [0025-0028] and [0032] discloses when non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs are placed in the same network domain as resource reservation protocol (second protocol) LSPs, inaccuracies may be introduced in the TED (LSP record storage) used by resource reservation protocol path computation elements, such as controller 30 or ingress router 12A. For example, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths (RSVP-TE LSP paths) may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. [0026] to solve the above problem, In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 or LDP LSP 24) from each interface (resource reservation measure that is resource (bandwidth) utilization value by the non-resource reservation protocol LSP (see [0042-0043] of the instant application)) of ingress router 12A…[0027] In some examples, system 10 may include a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22. Controller 30 may include a bandwidth subscription manager 80 for comparing traffic statistics on interfaces of ingress routers such as router 12A to a pre-defined threshold to trigger an adjustment of percentage of reservable bandwidth available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on particular interfaces if traffic flow statistics from non-RSVP LSPs has met the threshold. [0028] For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may receive a set of traffic flow statistics 32 from ingress router 12A, and computes an average from the set of traffic flow statistics (determining first reservation measure associated with resource utilization of the SR protocol for SR LSP 20)…If the threshold is met on an interface, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may send an adjustment instruction 34 instructing ingress router 12A to modify percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for corresponding interfaces of ingress router 12A…[0032] Bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compare a pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold with the average of segment routing LSP 20 traffic flow. As one example, the pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold may establish an upper boundary of 15 percent bandwidth utilization. In response to determining that the 20 percent bandwidth utilization (that corresponds to first bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured for link 18A of LSP 20 of fig 1 and second bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured on link 18D of LSP 20 of fig. 1) by segment routing LSP 20 has met a configured threshold for non-RSVP LSP bandwidth 15 percent, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may cause ingress router 12A to adjust percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations (that correspond to third bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 on the link 18A that is between router 12A and router 12C of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization measure of link 18A (first bandwidth utilization measure) or fourth bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 when considering link 18D that is between router 12C and router 12D of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization of link 18D (second bandwidth utilization measure) respectively) for an interface of ingress router 12A associated with link 18A. For example, in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The above step is performed on router 12A for link 18A between router 12A and router 12C. See fig. 1 where In that link, link 18A, 3 LSPS such as: LSP20 of SR LSP, LSP 24 of LDP LSP (where both protocol SR and LDP are non-resource reservation protocols with corresponding LSPs), and LSP 22 of RSVP-TE LSP that is LSP for resource reservation protocol. The above step are done to determine RSVP-TE LSP reservable resource to link 18A. Similar steps can be performed on subsequent links, link 18D, connecting router 12C and router 12D in the path where similar steps can be performed for link 18D (second link) by router 12C that corresponds to determining second bandwidth reservation measure (bandwidth utilization value) for link 18D of utilizing an non-reservation protocol (SR or LDP protocol))); (iv) the second LSP is a one-hop LSP associated with the second protocol that comprises the first link ([0019] discloses , routers 12 may use a resource reservation protocol such as the Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering extensions (RSVP-TE) to establish RSVP-TE LSPs, such as RSVP-TE LSP 22A, 22B (collectively, RSVP-TE LSPs 22″) that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B. Routers 12 may also use non-resource reservation protocol mechanisms, e.g., non-RSVP mechanisms such as segment routing techniques and/or the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24 that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B, for example. In the example of FIG. 1, segment routing LSP 20, LDP LSP 24, and RSVP-TE LSPs 22 are established across one or more of links 18A-18X (“links 18”) using segment routing techniques, LDP protocol, and RSVP-TE protocol, respectively. When the network is composed of nodes only one hop nodes, the TED record or bandwidth reservation record for the RSVP-TE (resource reservation protocol) link such as link 22a and SR (non-reservation protocol) link such as link 22 corresponds to the one hop link).
based on adding the third LSP to the set of LSPs associated with the second protocol, adding to the set of LSP records a third LSP record associated with the second protocol (fig. 1 discloses LSP 22, RSVP-TE LSP on link 18D (part of LSP 22) that corresponds to third LSP record established and stored), wherein the bandwidth information represented by the third LSP record is associated with the dedicated path represented by the third LASP and represents a fourth bandwidth reservation measure that is determined based on the second bandwidth reservation measure ([0025-0028] and [0032] discloses when non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs are placed in the same network domain as resource reservation protocol (second protocol) LSPs, inaccuracies may be introduced in the TED (LSP record storage) used by resource reservation protocol path computation elements, such as controller 30 or ingress router 12A. For example, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths (RSVP-TE LSP paths) may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. [0026] to solve the above problem, In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 or LDP LSP 24) from each interface (resource reservation measure that is resource (bandwidth) utilization value by the non-resource reservation protocol LSP (see [0042-0043] of the instant application)) of ingress router 12A…[0027] In some examples, system 10 may include a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22. Controller 30 may include a bandwidth subscription manager 80 for comparing traffic statistics on interfaces of ingress routers such as router 12A to a pre-defined threshold to trigger an adjustment of percentage of reservable bandwidth available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on particular interfaces if traffic flow statistics from non-RSVP LSPs has met the threshold. [0028] For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may receive a set of traffic flow statistics 32 from ingress router 12A, and computes an average from the set of traffic flow statistics (determining first reservation measure associated with resource utilization of the SR protocol for SR LSP 20)…If the threshold is met on an interface, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may send an adjustment instruction 34 instructing ingress router 12A to modify percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for corresponding interfaces of ingress router 12A…[0032] Bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compare a pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold with the average of segment routing LSP 20 traffic flow. As one example, the pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold may establish an upper boundary of 15 percent bandwidth utilization. In response to determining that the 20 percent bandwidth utilization (that corresponds to first bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured for link 18A of LSP 20 of fig 1 and second bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured on link 18D of LSP 20 of fig. 1) by segment routing LSP 20 has met a configured threshold for non-RSVP LSP bandwidth 15 percent, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may cause ingress router 12A to adjust percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations (that correspond to third bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 on the link 18A that is between router 12A and router 12C of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization measure of link 18A (link) or fourth bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 when considering link 18D that is between router 12C and router 12D of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization of link 18D (second link) respectively) for an interface of ingress router 12A associated with link 18A. For example, in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The above step is performed on router 12A for link 18A between router 12A and router 12C. See fig. 1 where In link 18A, 3 LSPS such as: LSP20 of SR LSP, LSP 24 of LDP LSP (where both protocol SR and LDP are non-resource reservation protocols with corresponding LSPs), and LSP 22 of RSVP-TE LSP that is LSP for resource reservation protocol co-exist. The above step are done to determine RSVP-TE LSP reservable resource to link 18A based on resource utilization values measured for the non-resource utilization protocol LSPs, LSP 20 and LSP 24 on link 18A, are discounted from the total. Similar steps can be performed on subsequent links such as: link 18D, connecting router 12C and router 12D that corresponds to determining second bandwidth reservation measure (bandwidth utilization value) for link 18D of utilizing an non-reservation protocol (SR or LDP protocols)); [0019] discloses , routers 12 may use a resource reservation protocol such as the Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering extensions (RSVP-TE) to establish RSVP-TE LSPs, such as RSVP-TE LSP 22A, 22B (collectively, RSVP-TE LSPs 22″) that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B. Routers 12 may also use non-resource reservation protocol mechanisms, e.g., non-RSVP mechanisms such as segment routing techniques and/or the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24 that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B, for example. In the example of FIG. 1, segment routing LSP 20, LDP LSP 24, and RSVP-TE LSPs 22 are established across one or more of links 18A-18X (“links 18”) using segment routing techniques, LDP protocol, and RSVP-TE protocol, respectively. When the network is composed of nodes only one hop nodes, the TED record or bandwidth reservation record for the RSVP-TE (resource reservation protocol) link such as link 22a and SR (non-reservation protocol) link such as link 22 corresponds to the one hop link).
Torvi further implicitly disclose determining a path associated with the second protocol based on the second LSP and the third LSP ([0007] discloses techniques described are for bandwidth sharing between resource reservation protocol label switched paths (LSPs) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. For example, in networks where resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) information about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. Path computation elements may thus rely on an accurate TED for LSP path computation;[0027] discloses a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22).
But, Torvi does not explicitly disclose:
determining a path associated with the second protocol based on the second LSP and the third LSP.
However, in the same field of endeavor, RFC 8426 discloses determining a path associated with the second protocol based on the second LSP and the third LSP (Introduction discloses Introduction of SR in the same network domain as RSVP-TE [RFC3209] presents the problem of accounting for SR traffic and making RSVP-TE aware of the actual available bandwidth on the network links. RSVP-TE is not aware of how much bandwidth is being consumed by SR services on the network links and hence both at computation time (for a distributed computation) and at signaling time RSVP-TE LSPs will incorrectly place loads. This is true where RSVP-TE paths are distributed or centrally computed without a common entity managing both SR and RSVP-TE computation for the entire network domain…3.5. TED consistency by reflecting SR traffic The solution relies on dynamically measuring SR traffic utilization on each TE interface and reducing the bandwidth allowed for use by RSVP-TE…At every interval T, each node SHOULD collect the SR traffic statistics for each of its TE interfaces. Further, at every interval N, given a configured SR traffic threshold percentage and a set of collected SR traffic statistics samples across the interval N, the SR traffic average (or any other traffic metric depending on the algorithm used) over this period is calculated. If the difference between the new calculated SR traffic average and the current SR traffic average (that was computed in the prior adjustment) is at least SR traffic threshold percentage, then a value MUST be updated: o New Maximum-Reservable-Bandwidth = Current Maximum-Reservable- Bandwidth - (SR traffic average * M) that corresponds RSVP-TE LSP value and this value determined for a first and second consecutive links corresponds to the second and the third LSP values associated with the corresponding links each. Using these values to select consecutive links and build path having resource reservation in RSVP-TE taking in to consideration of the SR bandwidth utilization (resource utilization of each links) corresponds to determining. If the path has 2 links, the RSVP-TE LSP for each link in the path determined as indicated above corresponds to the first and the second LSP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill In the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of Torvi with RFC 8426. The modification would allow for bandwidth sharing between resource reservation protocol label switched paths (LSPs) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. For example, in networks where resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) information about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. Path computation elements may thus rely on an accurate TED for LSP path computation (See Torvi [0007]).
Regarding claim 2. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses, wherein the first protocol is a segment routing protocol (fig. 1 and [0019] discloses Routers 12 may also use non-resource reservation protocol mechanisms, e.g., non-RSVP mechanisms such as segment routing techniques and/or the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24).
Regarding claim 3. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi, further discloses, wherein the second protocol is a Resource Reservation (RSVP) protocol or an RSVP with Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) protocol ([0019] For illustrative purposes, routers 12 may use a resource reservation protocol such as the Resource Reservation Protocol with Traffic Engineering extensions (RSVP-TE) to establish RSVP-TE LSPs, such as RSVP-TE LSP 22A, 22B (collectively, RSVP-TE LSPs 22″).
Regarding claim 4. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses, wherein determining the second LSP comprises: determining that the first link is part of a fifth LSP, wherein the fifth LSP is associated with a third protocol and the third protocol is a second non-reservation routing protocol ([0026] discloses ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics (resource/bandwidth reservation measures) of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 (first LSP) or LDP LSP 24 (fifth LSP)) from each interface of ingress router 12A. For example, ingress router 12A may periodically (e.g., every 10 seconds, every minute, etc.) collect traffic flow statistics from an interface associated with link 18A (first link), for which RSVP-TE LSPs 22 and segment routing LSP 20 and LDP LSP 24 (fifth LSP) are established. The established LSP record is stored; [0019] discloses Routers 12 may also use non-resource reservation protocol mechanisms, e.g., non-RSVP mechanisms such as segment routing techniques and/or the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), for establishing non-resource reservation protocol LSPs, such as segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24 that extend from ingress router 12A to egress router 12B);
determining a fifth bandwidth reservation measure for the first link in relation to the third protocol ([0060] discloses bandwidth subscription manager may receive traffic flow statistics (bandwidth reservation measure) of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs from each interface of ingress router 12A (92). As one example, a network administrator may configure an ingress router 12A to periodically collect an amount of network traffic, e.g., packet and byte statistics, forwarded on a non-resource reservation protocol LSP, e.g., segment routing LSP 20 and/or LDP LSP 24 (fifth bandwidth reservation measure), over an interface (e.g., IFCs 54) associated with link 18A, which establishes RSVP-TE LSPs 22, segment routing LSP 20, and LDP LSP 24); and
determining the first bandwidth reservation measure based on the first bandwidth reservation measure and the fifth bandwidth reservation measure ([0025-0028] and [0032] discloses when non-resource reservation protocol (first protocol) LSPs are placed in the same network domain as resource reservation protocol (second protocol) LSPs, inaccuracies may be introduced in the TED (LSP record storage) used by resource reservation protocol path computation elements, such as controller 30 or ingress router 12A. For example, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths (RSVP-TE LSP paths) may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. [0026] to solve the above problem, In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, ingress router 12A may implement collect traffic flow statistics of non-resource reservation protocol LSPs (e.g., segment routing LSP 20 or LDP LSP 24) from each interface (resource reservation measure that is resource (bandwidth) utilization value by the non-resource reservation protocol LSP (see [0042-0043] of the instant application)) of ingress router 12A…[0027] In some examples, system 10 may include a central controller 30, which centrally computes the paths for non-RSVP LSPs 20, 24 and RSVP-TE LSPs 22. Controller 30 may include a bandwidth subscription manager 80 for comparing traffic statistics on interfaces of ingress routers such as router 12A to a pre-defined threshold to trigger an adjustment of percentage of reservable bandwidth available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on particular interfaces if traffic flow statistics from non-RSVP LSPs has met the threshold. [0028] For example, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may receive a set of traffic flow statistics 32 from ingress router 12A, and computes an average from the set of traffic flow statistics (determining first reservation measure associated with resource utilization of the SR protocol for SR LSP 20)…If the threshold is met on an interface, bandwidth subscription manager 80 of controller 30 may send an adjustment instruction 34 instructing ingress router 12A to modify percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations for corresponding interfaces of ingress router 12A…[0032] Bandwidth subscription manager 80 may compare a pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold with the average of segment routing LSP 20 traffic flow. As one example, the pre-defined traffic adjust-threshold may establish an upper boundary of 15 percent bandwidth utilization. In response to determining that the 20 percent bandwidth utilization (that corresponds to first bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured for link 18A of LSP 20 of fig 1 and second bandwidth reservation measure when it is measured on link 18D of LSP 20 of fig. 1) by segment routing LSP 20 has met a configured threshold for non-RSVP LSP bandwidth 15 percent, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may cause ingress router 12A to adjust percentage of reservable bandwidth for RSVP-TE LSP reservations (that correspond to third bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 on the link 18A that is between router 12A and router 12C of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization measure of link 18A (link) or fourth bandwidth reservation measure of RSSVP-TE LSP 22 when considering link 18D that is between router 12C and router 12D of fig. 1 based on LSP 20 (SR LSP) bandwidth utilization of link 18D (second link) respectively) for an interface of ingress router 12A associated with link 18A. For example, in response to determining that the average of traffic flow statistics for segment routing LSP has met the traffic adjust-threshold, bandwidth subscription manager 80 may configure an adjustment instruction 34 to ingress router 12A to update the TED with an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth (e.g., from 100 percent to 80 percent) available for RSVP-TE LSP reservations on the interface associated with link 18A. The above step is performed on router 12A for link 18A between router 12A and router 12C. See fig. 1 where In link 18A, 3 LSPS such as: LSP20 of SR LSP, LSP 24 of LDP LSP (where both protocol SR and LDP are non-resource reservation protocols with corresponding LSPs), and LSP 22 of RSVP-TE LSP that is LSP for resource reservation protocol co-exist. The above step are done to determine RSVP-TE LSP reservable resource to link 18A based on resource utilization values measured for the non-resource utilization protocol LSPs, LSP 20 and LSP 24 on link 18A, are discounted from the total. Similar steps can be performed on subsequent links such as: link 18D, connecting router 12C and router 12D that corresponds to determining second bandwidth reservation measure (bandwidth utilization value) for link 18D of utilizing an non-reservation protocol (SR or LDP protocols). Re-adjusting the LSP 20 utilization (first bandwidth reservation measure)and LDP LSP (fifth bandwidth reservation measure) utilization based on current measured value to determine resource reservable for LSP 22 (RSVP-TE LSP) corresponds to determining the first bandwidth reservation measure based on the first bandwidth reservation measure and the fifth bandwidth reservation measure );
Regarding claim 5. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses, wherein the second LSP is a one-hop LSP ([0022] discloses routers to advertise single hop LSPs; fig. 1 [0060-0061] and [0025-0028] discloses LSP 22 connects links 18A and 18D and further hop-by-hop).
Regarding claim 6. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses, wherein storing the second LSP record comprises storing the second LSP record on a storage device associated with path computation element (PCE) associated with the second protocol ([0007] discloses where resource reservation protocol LSPs (second LSP record) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) (storage) information about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. Path computation elements (PCE) may thus rely on an accurate TED for LSP path computation).
Regarding claim 7. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses , wherein determining the path comprises determining the path using a PCE element associated with the second protocol ([0007] discloses where resource reservation protocol LSPs (second LSP record) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) (storage) information about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. Path computation elements (PCE) may thus rely on an accurate TED for LSP path computation .
Regarding claim 9. The combination discloses a system comprising:
one or more processors (fig. 1 discloses routers 12 comprising processor and memory); and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations ((fig. 1 discloses routers 12 comprising processor and memory) comprising:
All other limitations of claim 9 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 and rejected on the analyses of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 10 are similar with the limitations of claim 2 and rejected on the analyses of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 11 are similar with the limitations of claim 3 and rejected on the analyses of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 12 are similar with the limitations of claim 4 and rejected on the analyses of claim 4.
Regarding claim 13. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 13 are similar with the limitations of claim 5 and rejected on the analyses of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 14 are similar with the limitations of claim 6 and rejected on the analyses of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15. The combination discloses system of claim 9.
All other limitations of claim 15 are similar with the limitations of claim 7 and rejected on the analyses of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17. Torvi discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (fig. 1 discloses routers 12 comprising processor and memory)), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
All other limitations of claim 17 are similar with the limitations of claim 1 above and rejected on that claims analysis.
Regarding claim 19. The combination discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17.
All other limitations of claim 19 are similar with the limitations of claim 3 above and rejected on that claims analysis.
Regarding claim 20. The combination discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein determining the second LSP comprises:
All other limitations of claim 20 are similar with the limitations of claim 4 above and rejected on that claims analysis.
Regarding claim 21. The combination discloses method of claim 1, wherein:
Torvi discloses the second LSP record represents a first reservation of a first network resource, the first network resource being along the first link and being associated with the third bandwidth reservation measure the second link and being associated with the fourth bandwidth reservation measure ([0047] discloses routing component 44 may include a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) 82 for storing e.g., path information for resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. In some examples, TED 82 may include reservable bandwidth data 84 that indicates the percentage of reservable bandwidth for resource reservation protocol LSPs for each interface of router 40. As described below, when computing paths for resource reservation LSPs, router 40 may rely on updated TED information to provide an adjusted percentage of reservable bandwidth available for resource reservation protocol LSPs per interface. TED 82 may be in the form of a variety of data structures, such as link lists (allocation information for each links).; and the third LSP record represents a second reservation of a second network resource, the first network resource being along; [0007] discloses techniques described are for bandwidth sharing between resource reservation protocol label switched paths (LSPs) and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs. For example, in networks where resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs co-exist within the same domain, resource reservation protocol LSPs and non-resource reservation protocol LSPs may share link bandwidth. However, when non-resource reservation protocol LSPs are provisioned, resource reservation protocol path computation elements computing resource reservation protocol paths may not account for non-resource reservation protocol LSP bandwidth utilization. The techniques described herein provide a mechanism for automatically updating traffic engineering database (TED) information (LSP record of bandwidth corresponding to respective resource reservation protocol LSP and non-resource reservation protocol LSP) about resource reservation protocol LSPs in a way that accounts for non-resource reservation protocol LSP traffic flow statistics, such as bandwidth utilization. The database corresponds to LSP record. When the network comprises nodes that are only one hop. The record associated with the one hope nodes corresponds to one-hop reservation-based LSPs).
Regarding claim 22. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi discloses, wherein each LSP of the set of LSPs represents a sequence of network segments(fig. 1 discloses LSP 20, LSP 22A and LSP 22b each is composed of network segments).
Regarding claim 23. The combination discloses method of claim 1.
Torvi further discloses, wherein each LSP of the set of LSPs represents a forwarding behavior instruction (fig. 1 discloses LSP 20, LSP 22A and LSP 22b each is composed of network segments. Wear each LSP is used to forward traffic from same source to destination using different LSPs).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Torvi (US pg. no. 20180006948), and “Recommendations for RSVP-TE and segment Routing LSP co-existence draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-00”, herein after RFC8426, further in view of Margi (US pg. no. 20140328587).
Regarding claim 8. The combination discloses method of claim 7.
But, the combination does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the PCE element determines the path based on receiving a PCE protocol request from a node in the network.
However, in the same field of endeavor Magri discloses wherein the PCE element determines the path based on receiving a PCE protocol request from a node in the network ([0040] FIG. 3 shows PCEP communication between PCC 21 and PCE 22. The communication comprises the PCC sending a PCEP Request message 101 to the PCE 22. PCE 22 computes 102 a path based on information received in the Request message 101. PCE 22 can also use other information, such as impairment information and information about available wavelength channels. PCE 22 then sends a PCEP Reply message 103 to the PCC 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was effectively filed to combine the teaching of the combination with Magri. The modification would allow a pull based service where network resource such as path computation is used only when the service is needed. The modification would allow avoid unwanted push based communication that uses network resource and create congestion or traffic.
Regarding claim 16. The combination discloses system of claim 15.
All other limitations of claim 16 are similar with the limitations of claim 8 and rejected on the analyses of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-CN 101155131.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESSERET F. GEBRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8272. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar Louie can be reached on 5712701684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MESSERET F GEBRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 .