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 .
1. This communication is in response to claims filed on 12/15/2025.
In response to the 10/14/2025 restriction requirement, Applicant selected Invention I, claims 1-10 and 18-20, without traverse. Claims 11-17 have been cancelled, and claims 21-27 were added.
Claims 1-10 and 18-27 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
2. Claims 18 and 19 both recite, “a VXLAN header containing a leaf indication flag, the leaf indication flag having…”. Although it is understood that this recitation in claim 18 refers to a leaf indication flag contained in a VXLAN header of BUM traffic, and in claim 19 refers to a leaf indication contained in a VXLAN header of the additional BUM traffic, Applicant is urged to specify this distinction by amended the claims to recite, “the leaf indication flag in the VXLAN header of the BUM traffic” in claim 18 and “the leaf indication flag in the VXLAN header of the additional BUM traffic” in claim 19, in order to avoid improper antecedent basis for “the leaf indication flag”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, for the following reasons:
3. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 24 recite “the VLAN identified by the VLAN identifier”, and claim 26 recites, “the VLAN identified by the additional VLAN identifier”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Specifically, the claims do not previously disclose a VLAN.
For purposes of examination, these recitations are interpreted as “a VLAN identified by the VLAN identifier” and “a VLAN identified by the additional VLAN identifier”, respectively.
4. Claim 7 recites, “and in the one or more peer EVPN network devices”. It unclear what this recitation refers to, specifically what is “in” the one or more peer EVPN network devices. Further, “one or more peer EVPN network devices” is recited both previously in claim 7 and in claim 1, from which claim 7 indirectly depends. It is therefore unclear which of these one or more peer EVPN network devices this recitation is intended to refer to, or whether both previous recitations are intended to refer to the same one or more peer EVPN network devices.
For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that a floodlist identifies one or more peer EVPN network devices connected to one or more local root-designated hosts.
Claim 8 is rejected in view of its dependency from claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1-4, 10, 21-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brissette et al. (US 2020/0396103) in view of Sajassi et al. (A Network Virtualization Overlay Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN), RFC 8365).
Regarding claim 1, Brissette teaches a method of conveying Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) routing information, the method comprising:
advertising, by a EVPN network device (A plurality of network apparatuses, PE1 111, PE2 112, PE3 113, and PE4 114 are connected to an EVPN network, [0014]), an EVPN Auto-Discovery (A-D) route toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (the extended community may be advertised along with the EAD-ES route (with an ESI of zero) for BUM traffic to enable egress filtering on disposition network apparatuses, [0016]),
wherein the EVPN A-D route comprises a network identifier indicative of leaf-sourced network traffic or root-sourced network traffic (Each advertising network apparatus may allocate one or two MPLS labels for a given segment. These labels may be advertised in the leaf/root label field, [0016]; On receiving the advertisements, the receiving network apparatus may store these labels, [0016]), and
wherein the EVPN A-D route comprises a field having a value of a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) identifier (a 12-bit VID may be used as a segment identifier, [0016]) associated with the network identifier (a segment may be associated with both root and leaf sites. In such cases, two downstream assigned MPLS label may be used for each segment identifier: one for root and another for leaf, [0020]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) network identifier or wherein the EVPN A-D route comprises an Ethernet Tag Identifier (ETID) field having the value of a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) identifier.
Sajassi teaches a Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) network identifier indicative of source network traffic (multiple subnets, each represented by a unique VNI, are mapped to a single EVI. For example, if a tenant has multiple segments/subnets each represented by a VNI, then all the VNIs for that tenant are mapped to a single EVI, page 11 section 5.1.2. Virtual Identifiers to EVI Mapping; specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes),
wherein a EVPN A-D route comprises an Ethernet Tag Identifier (ETID) field having a value of a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) identifier (For locally assigned VNIs, the value advertised in the Ethernet Tag field MUST be set to a VID, page 14 section 5.1.3. Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 2, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 1, wherein the EVPN A-D route comprises an E-tree extended community having a field with the VNI as a value of the field of the E-tree extended community (These labels may be advertised in the leaf/root label field. When a network apparatus advertises two extended communities for a segment, one may be for < segment> and another for < segment>. In particular embodiments, the extended community may be advertised along with the EAD-ES route (with an ESI of zero) for BUM traffic, [0016]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches a field with the VNI as a value of the field (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 3, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 2, wherein the EVPN A-D route comprises an Ethernet Segment Identifier (ESI) field having a value of zero (the extended community may be advertised along with the EAD-ES route (with an ESI of zero), [0016]).
Regarding claim 4, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 1, wherein the network identifier is indicative of the leaf-sourced network traffic and wherein the network identifier is a leaf network identifier (These labels may be advertised in the leaf/root label field. When a network apparatus advertises two extended communities for a segment, one may be for <root, segment> and another for <leaf, segment>, [0016]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches the network identifier is a VNI (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
Regarding claim 10, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 1, wherein the EVPN network device is coupled to the one or more peer EVPN network devices via a core network configured to forward traffic between the EVPN network device and the one or more peer EVPN network device (A plurality of network apparatuses, PE1 111, PE2 112, PE3 113, and PE4 114 are connected to an EVPN network. Each network apparatus is connected to one or more customer devices, [0014]; A frame belonging to the broadcast domain from a customer device may be bridged through the core network to one or more destination customer devices, [0014]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose VXLAN traffic.
Sajassi teaches forwarding VXLAN traffic between EVPN network devices (Both VXLAN and NVGRE are examples of technologies that provide a data plane encapsulation which is used to transport a packet over the common physical IP infrastructure between Network Virtualization Edges (NVEs) - e.g., VXLAN Tunnel End Points (VTEPs) in VXLAN network, page 6 section 5.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the BUM segmentation of Brissette to VXLAN traffic as suggested by Sajassi to better manage traffic isolation in large VXLAN overlays. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to control traffic patterns and prevent unnecessary traffic from flooding across tenants in large networks.
Claim 21 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 1, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
Claim 22 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 2, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
Claim 23 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 3, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
Regarding claim 25, Brissette teaches the network device defined in claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
advertise an additional EVPN A-D route, wherein the additional EVPN A-D route comprises an additional network identifier indicative of root-sourced network traffic (Each advertising network apparatus may allocate one or two MPLS labels for a given segment, [0016]; When a network apparatus advertises two extended communities for a segment, one may be for < root, segment>, [0016]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI or wherein the additional EVPN A-D route comprises an additional ETID field having an additional VLAN identifier associated with an additional VNI.
Sajassi teaches an additional EVPN A-D route comprising an additional VNI network identifier (multiple subnets, each represented by a unique VNI, are mapped to a single EVI. For example, if a tenant has multiple segments/subnets each represented by a VNI, then all the VNIs for that tenant are mapped to a single EVI, page 11 section 5.1.2. Virtual Identifiers to EVI Mapping; specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes) and comprising an additional ETID field having an additional VLAN identifier associated with an additional VNI (For locally assigned VNIs, the value advertised in the Ethernet Tag field MUST be set to a VID, page 14 section 5.1.3. Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices, associated with different VLANs. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
6. Claims 5, 6, 9, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brissette-Sajassi in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0094769).
Regarding claim 5, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 4 further comprising:
receiving, by the EVPN network device and from a leaf-designated host, broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) traffic (if the BUM frame arrives on a leaf AC, then the “leaf” label may be used, [0016]), wherein the leaf-designated host is locally attached to the EVPN network device (a first network apparatus 111 in a network may receive a BUM frame from a first device 121 connected to the first network apparatus 111, [0017]) and is a member of the VLAN identified by the VLAN identifier (VID) (the broadcast domain may be identified based on a VLAN identifier (VID) associated with the BUM frame. In particular embodiments, virtual local area network bundle service for EVPN may be utilized. In such cases, the broadcast domain is identified based on an EVPN Instance (EVI) identifier associated with the BUM frame, [0018]).
However, although Brissette teaches a leaf network identifier, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches a VNI network identifier (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
However, Brissette-Sajassi do not explicitly disclose encapsulating the BUM traffic with a VXLAN header containing a leaf identifier, or outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic towards the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Chen teaches encapsulating BUM traffic with a VXLAN header (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) containing a leaf identifier (The Label Option may indicate the split horizon attributes of the first AC in such a way that the split horizon attributes of the first AC include at least the leaf attribute by carrying the Label Option, that is, when the variable length option of the Geneve Header in the data packet is extended with the Label Option, [0042]; when the data message sent by the first AC is encapsulated, the same format as an inner Ethernet message of the E-Tree data message defined in the Request For Comments 7796 (RFC7796) is used for the Ethernet message of the inner load of the data packet, and Leaf VLAN is carried in the Ethernet message of the inner load of the data packet to indicate that the split horizon attribute of the first AC sending the data message is the Leaf attribute, [0063]; When receiving the BUM packet (the BUM packet is sent by the corresponding user site to the Leaf3) sent by the Leaf3, according to the records in the present disclosure, the PE1 needs to add a Leaf label in the process of encapsulating the data message in the BUM packet, that is, the PE1 carries the split horizon attribute of the corresponding link as the leaf attribute, [0087]); and
outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (The NVE1 node sends the encapsulated data packet to the NVE3 node after encapsulation, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette-Sajassi as suggested by Chen in order to enforce forwarding rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to maintain desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
Regarding claim 6, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 4 further comprising:
receiving, by the EVPN network device and from a root-designated host, broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) traffic (if a BUM frame arrives on a root AC, then the “root” label may be used, [0016]), wherein the root-designated host is locally attached to the EVPN network device (a first network apparatus 111 in a network may receive a BUM frame from a first device 121 connected to the first network apparatus 111, [0017]) and is a member of the VLAN identified by the VLAN identifier (VID) (the broadcast domain may be identified based on a VLAN identifier (VID) associated with the BUM frame. In particular embodiments, virtual local area network bundle service for EVPN may be utilized. In such cases, the broadcast domain is identified based on an EVPN Instance (EVI) identifier associated with the BUM frame, [0018]).
However, although Brissette teaches a root network identifier different from the leaf network identifier, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches a VNI network identifier (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
However, Brissette-Sajassi do not explicitly disclose encapsulating the BUM traffic with a VXLAN header containing a root identifier different from the leaf identifier, or outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Chen teaches encapsulating BUM traffic with a VXLAN header (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) containing a root identifier different from a leaf identifier (when the variable length option of the Geneve Header in the data packet is not extended with the Label Option, the data packet may indicate that the split horizon attributes of the first AC include at least the root attribute and do not include the leaf attribute, [0042]; When receiving the BUM packet (the BUM packet is sent by the corresponding user site to the Root1) sent by the Root1, according to the records in the present disclosure, the PE1 needs to encapsulate the data message in the BUM packet, but has no need to add a Leaf or Root label, that is, the PE1 may indicate that the split horizon attribute of the corresponding link is the root attribute, [0088]); and
outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (The NVE1 node sends the encapsulated data packet to the NVE3 node after encapsulation, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette-Sajassi as suggested by Chen in order to enforce forwarding rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to maintain desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
Regarding claim 9, although Brissette teaches a network apparatus advertising for both a root and a leaf, Brissette-Sajassi do not explicitly disclose the method defined in claim 1, wherein the EVPN network device is locally attached to at least one leaf-designated host and at least one root-designated host.
Chen teaches wherein a EVPN network device is locally attached to at least one leaf-designated host and at least one root-designated host (The NVE1 node is connected to a first tenant (Tenant System1) and a second tenant (Tenant System2), and the split horizon attribute of the access link between the NVE1 node and the Tenant System1 is the root attribute, and the split horizon attribute of the access link between the NVE1 node and the Tenant System2 is the leaf attribute, [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize both a root device and a leaf device connected to a network apparatus in the system/method of Brissette-Sajassi as suggested by Chen given the teachings of Brissette for advertising both a root label and a leaf label for a particular segment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to allow for improved scalability and flexible configuration of devices connected to and communicating in an E-tree environment.
Claim 24 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 5, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
Claim 26 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 6, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
7. Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brissette-Sajassi in view of Boutros et al. (US 2015/0281096).
Regarding claim 7, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 4 further comprising:
maintaining a list for the leaf network identifier (network apparatus may store these labels to be used when sending BUM traffic to that network apparatus, [0016]).
However, although Brissette teaches the leaf network identifier, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches a VNI network identifier (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
However, Brissette-Sajassi do not explicitly disclose maintaining a floodlist for the leaf identifier, wherein the floodlist identifies one or more peer EVPN network devices having one or more local root-designated hosts and in the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Boutros teaches maintaining a floodlist for a leaf identifier, wherein the floodlist identifies one or more peer EVPN network devices having one or more local root-designated hosts and in the one or more peer EVPN network devices (When constructing the per bridge domain (BD) flood list, the PE marks the flood list entry of each remote PEr with the flag indicating Root/Leaf indication, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flood list in the system/method of Brissette-Sajassi as suggested by Boutros to allow for filtering of traffic at an ingress provider edge. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to avoid unnecessarily wasting bandwidth when it can be determined that certain traffic will be dropped by an egress provider edge.
Claim 27 recites limitations equivalent to those of claim 7, and therefore is rejected in view of the same rationale.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brissette-Sajassi-Boutros in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 7 further comprising:
receiving, by the EVPN network device and from a leaf-designated host, broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) traffic (if the BUM frame arrives on a leaf AC, then the “leaf” label may be used, [0016]), wherein the leaf-designated host is locally attached to the EVPN network device (a first network apparatus 111 in a network may receive a BUM frame from a first device 121 connected to the first network apparatus 111, [0017]) and is a member of the VLAN identified by the VLAN identifier (VID (the broadcast domain may be identified based on a VLAN identifier (VID) associated with the BUM frame. In particular embodiments, virtual local area network bundle service for EVPN may be utilized. In such cases, the broadcast domain is identified based on an EVPN Instance (EVI) identifier associated with the BUM frame, [0018]).
However, although Brissette teaches the leaf network identifier, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the network identifier is a VNI.
Sajassi teaches a VNI network identifier (specifically to support the option of locally assigned VNIs, the MPLS Label1 field in the MAC/IP Advertisement route, the MPLS label field in the Ethernet A-D per EVI route, and the MPLS label field in the P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel attribute of the Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag (IMET) route are used to carry the VNI. For the balance of this memo, the above MPLS label fields will be referred to as the VNI field, page 13 section 5.1.3 Constructing EVPN BGP Routes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize multiple locally assigned VNIs in the system/method of Brissette as suggested by Sajassi for isolating traffic between different tenants, such as leaf and root devices. One would be motivated to use VNIs in place of MPLS labels to allow for improved scalability and flexibility of the network.
However, Brissette-Sajassi do not explicitly disclose outputting traffic towards one or more peer EVPN network devices identified by a floodlist.
Boutros teaches outputting traffic toward the one or more peer EVPN network devices identified by the floodlist (When a multi-destination frame is received by the PE over a local Segment, it marks whether the frame was received over a Root or Leaf segment. The PE then iterates over the flood list entries and does not replicate any frames towards a PE that is marked as Leaf if the local segment is a leaf segment, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a flood list in the system/method of Brissette-Sajassi as suggested by Boutros to allow for filtering of traffic at an ingress provider edge. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to avoid unnecessarily wasting bandwidth when it can be determined that certain traffic will be dropped by an egress provider edge.
However, Brissette-Sajassi-Boutros do not explicitly disclose encapsulating the BUM traffic with a VXLAN header containing the leaf identifier, or outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Chen teaches encapsulating BUM traffic with a VXLAN header (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) containing a leaf identifier (The Label Option may indicate the split horizon attributes of the first AC in such a way that the split horizon attributes of the first AC include at least the leaf attribute by carrying the Label Option, that is, when the variable length option of the Geneve Header in the data packet is extended with the Label Option, [0042]; when the data message sent by the first AC is encapsulated, the same format as an inner Ethernet message of the E-Tree data message defined in the Request For Comments 7796 (RFC7796) is used for the Ethernet message of the inner load of the data packet, and Leaf VLAN is carried in the Ethernet message of the inner load of the data packet to indicate that the split horizon attribute of the first AC sending the data message is the Leaf attribute, [0063]; When receiving the BUM packet (the BUM packet is sent by the corresponding user site to the Leaf3) sent by the Leaf3, according to the records in the present disclosure, the PE1 needs to add a Leaf label in the process of encapsulating the data message in the BUM packet, that is, the PE1 carries the split horizon attribute of the corresponding link as the leaf attribute, [0087]); and
outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (The NVE1 node sends the encapsulated data packet to the NVE3 node after encapsulation, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette-Sajassi-Boutros as suggested by Chen in order to enforce forwarding rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to maintain desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
9. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brissette in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 18, Brissette teaches a method of operating an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) network device to forward traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices via a core network, the method comprising:
receiving, by the EVPN network device and from a leaf-designated host, broadcast, unknown unicast, or multicast (BUM) traffic (if the BUM frame arrives on a leaf AC, then the “leaf” label may be used, [0016]), wherein the leaf-designated host is locally attached to the EVPN network device (a first network apparatus 111 in a network may receive a BUM frame from a first device 121 connected to the first network apparatus 111, [0017]) and is a member of a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN) identified by a VLAN identifier (VID) (the broadcast domain may be identified based on a VLAN identifier (VID) associated with the BUM frame. In particular embodiments, virtual local area network bundle service for EVPN may be utilized. In such cases, the broadcast domain is identified based on an EVPN Instance (EVI) identifier associated with the BUM frame, [0018]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose encapsulating the BUM traffic with a Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) header containing a leaf indication flag, the leaf indication flag having a value indicative of leaf-sourced traffic, or outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Chen teaches encapsulating BUM traffic with a Virtual Extensible Local Area Network (VXLAN) header (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) containing a leaf indication flag (The Label Option may indicate the split horizon attributes of the first AC in such a way that the split horizon attributes of the first AC include at least the leaf attribute by carrying the Label Option, that is, when the variable length option of the Geneve Header in the data packet is extended with the Label Option, [0042]), the leaf indication flag having a value indicative of leaf-sourced traffic (When receiving the BUM packet (the BUM packet is sent by the corresponding user site to the Leaf3) sent by the Leaf3, according to the records in the present disclosure, the PE1 needs to add a Leaf label in the process of encapsulating the data message in the BUM packet, that is, the PE1 carries the split horizon attribute of the corresponding link as the leaf attribute, [0087]); and
outputting the encapsulated BUM traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (The NVE1 node sends the encapsulated data packet to the NVE3 node after encapsulation, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette as suggested by Chen in order to enforce forwarding rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to maintain desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
Regarding claim 19, Brissette teaches the method defined in claim 18 further comprising:
receiving, by the EVPN network device and from a root-designated host, additional BUM traffic (if a BUM frame arrives on a root AC, then the “root” label may be used, [0016]), wherein the root- designated host is locally attached to the EVPN network device (a first network apparatus 111 in a network may receive a BUM frame from a first device 121 connected to the first network apparatus 111, [0017]) and is a member of the VLAN identified by the VID (the broadcast domain may be identified based on a VLAN identifier (VID) associated with the BUM frame. In particular embodiments, virtual local area network bundle service for EVPN may be utilized. In such cases, the broadcast domain is identified based on an EVPN Instance (EVI) identifier associated with the BUM frame, [0018]).
However, Brissette does not explicitly disclose encapsulating the additional BUM traffic with a VXLAN header containing a leaf indication flag, the leaf indication flag having a value indicative of root-sourced traffic, or outputting the encapsulated additional BUM traffic toward the one or more peer EVPN network devices.
Chen teaches encapsulating additional BUM traffic with a VXLAN header (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) containing a leaf indication flag, the leaf indication flag having a value indicative of root-sourced traffic (when the variable length option of the Geneve Header in the data packet is not extended with the Label Option, the data packet may indicate that the split horizon attributes of the first AC include at least the root attribute and do not include the leaf attribute, [0042]; When receiving the BUM packet (the BUM packet is sent by the corresponding user site to the Root1) sent by the Root1, according to the records in the present disclosure, the PE1 needs to encapsulate the data message in the BUM packet, but has no need to add a Leaf or Root label, that is, the PE1 may indicate that the split horizon attribute of the corresponding link is the root attribute, [0088]); and
outputting the encapsulated additional BUM traffic toward one or more peer EVPN network devices (The NVE1 node sends the encapsulated data packet to the NVE3 node after encapsulation, [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette as suggested by Chen in order to enforce forwarding rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to maintain desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
Regarding claim 20, Brissette does not explicitly disclose the method defined in claim 19, wherein a VXLAN header of an encapsulated BUM traffic contains a VXLAN network identifier (VNI) associated with the VID and wherein the VXLAN header of the encapsulated additional BUM traffic contains the VNI.
Chen teaches wherein the VXLAN header of the encapsulated BUM traffic (a VXLAN-GPE Header in a data packet encapsulation format, [0066]; when the format of the data packet is VXLAN-GPE, the data packet includes a VXLAN-GPE Header, which is used to carry the split horizon attribute of the first AC, [0064]) contains a VXLAN network identifier (VNI) associated with the VID and wherein the VXLAN header of the encapsulated additional BUM traffic contains the VNI (It is to be noted that indicating the meaning of the VNI field through the Label-1 Value may be that the identity of the corresponding user who sends the data message through the first AC is indicated through the Label-1 Value, [0051]; The ESI label information for identifying the ESI to which the first AC belongs may be the MPLS label or the VNI label, [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a leaf/node attribute and a VNI field in encapsulated BUM traffic in the system/method Brissette as suggested by Chen in order to efficiently enforce isolation rules and reduce unnecessary flooding in a VXLAN environment. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to use this information for determining desired segmentation in a network of geographically separated devices operating as if they are on the same Ethernet segment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goli et al. US 8,724,629 – applying leaf or root tags to VLAN communications.
Ruble et al. US 9,178,717 – including a TPID field in a VLAN header with a value indicating whether a leaf or root status.
Yong et al. US 2011/0164617 – forwarding frames comprising a root tag or a leaf tag indicative of the source of the frame.
Jiang US 2012/0300784 – a local PE device advertising to a remote PE device indicating whether a VLAN identifier belongs to a root VLAN or a leaf VLAN.
Yang et al. US 2014/0050116 – assigning identifiers to leaf devices and including these identifiers in headers of frames sent to spine devices.
Gourlay et al. US 2015/0200847 – a leaf switch examining VXLAN header to determine a source VNI of a frame.
Fernando et al. US 2017/0317919 – transmitting VXLAN encapsulated packets and advertisements to identify leaf switches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADHU WOOLCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday 9-6 ET.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
MADHU WOOLCOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/MADHU WOOLCOCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451