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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The office action is a response to application filed 8/23/2024. Wherein claims 1-10 are pending and ready for examination.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (Wo 2017149364 A1) in view of Del Regno (US 20140328163 A1) in view of Wang (US 20040085893 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a communication method,
Lu teaches applied to a first network apparatus in a network of a Multichassis Link Aggregation Group (M-LAG); (Lu, [0029], a method and apparatus for enabling traffic reroute in an Inter-Chassis Redundancy (ICR) System is described. In one embodiment of the invention, a first network device of an inter-chassis redundancy (ICR) system coupled with a second network device of the ICR system, of enabling traffic reroute in the ICR system is described. Each one of the first and the second devices is coupled with a third network device through a Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG).)
the network of the M-LAG further comprises a second network apparatus, wherein a Peerlink link established between the first network apparatus and the second network apparatus is faulty, the method comprising: forwarding, by the first network apparatus, the traffic based on a first forwarding entry, (Lu, abstract. [0029], a method and apparatus for enabling traffic reroute in an Inter-Chassis Redundancy (ICR) System is described. In one embodiment of the invention, a first network device of an inter-chassis redundancy (ICR) system coupled with a second network device of the ICR system, of enabling traffic reroute in the ICR system is described. Each one of the first and the second devices is coupled with a third network device through a Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG). The first network device is operative to monitor an inter-chassis redundancy (ICR) link coupling the first network device to the second network device of the ICR system; and to detect a failure of the ICR link. In response to detecting the failure of the ICR link, and to determining that the first network device is in a standby mode, the first network device is operative to transmit to the third network device an indication that one or more links associated with the first network device are no longer operative to join the MC-LAG. The third network device is operative to load balance downstream traffic to the first network device and the second network device, and transmitting the indication that one or more links associated with the first network device are no longer operative to join the MC-LAG causes the third network device to redirect downstream traffic only towards the second network device without loss or interruption of traffic. [0048], upon receipt of the LACP PDU packets with "OUT-SYNC" bit set, ND 103A stops sending downstream data packets and reroute the downstream traffic towards the remaining active links of the MC-LAG 114, which includes the link 114A. Thus, upon detection of a fault in the ICR Link the traffic is rerouted towards the active network device without any interruption or loss of traffic. [0091], making forwarding decisions and performing actions occurs, based upon the forwarding table entry identified during packet classification, by executing the set of actions identified in the matched forwarding table entry on the packet.)
wherein the third network apparatus is an apparatus accessed by both the first network
apparatus and the second network apparatus, and a path from the third network apparatus to
the first network apparatus and a path from the third network apparatus to the second network
apparatus are equal-cost paths. (Lu, abstract. [0029], a method and apparatus for enabling traffic reroute in an Inter-Chassis Redundancy (ICR) System is described. In one embodiment of the invention, a first network device of an inter-chassis redundancy (ICR) system coupled with a second network device of the ICR system, of enabling traffic reroute in the ICR system is described. Each one of the first and the second devices is coupled with a third network device through a Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG). [0094], next hop selection by the routing system for a given destination may resolve to one path (that is, a routing protocol may generate one next hop on a shortest path); but if the routing system determines there are multiple viable next hops (that is, the routing protocol generated forwarding solution offers more than one next hop on a shortest path - multiple equal cost next hops), some additional criteria is used - for instance, in a connectionless network, Equal Cost Multi Path (ECMP) (also known as Equal Cost Multi Pathing, multipath forwarding and IP multipath) may be used (e.g., typical implementations use as the criteria particular header fields to ensure that the packets of a particular packet flow are always forwarded on the same next hop to preserve packet flow ordering). For purposes of multipath forwarding, a packet flow is defined as a set of packets that share an ordering constraint. As an example, the set of packets in a particular TCP transfer sequence need to arrive in order, else the TCP logic will interpret the out of order delivery as congestion and slow the TCP transfer rate down.)
Lu does not teach wherein the first forwarding entry for forwarding traffic comprised in the first network apparatus is not aged; sending, by the first network apparatus in response to a determination that the first network apparatus is a network apparatus performing traffic switchover, a first packet to a third network apparatus so that the third network apparatus is to regenerate a forwarding path to reach a target network apparatus through the second network apparatus;
Del Regno however in the same field of computer networking teaches sending, by the first network apparatus in response to a determination that the first network apparatus is a network apparatus performing traffic switchover, a first packet to a third network apparatus so that the third network apparatus is to regenerate a forwarding path to reach a target network apparatus through the second network apparatus; (Del Regno, [0018], FIG. 1A, network 140 includes provider edge LERs 150-1 and 150-2 and intermediate LSRs 160-1 through 160-q. LERs 150-1 and 150-2 reside at an edge of network 140 so as to send/receive traffic to/from clients 120-1 through 120-(x+1). LERs 150-1 and 150-2 may forward traffic received from a client 120 towards a destination client via an intermediate LSR 160. LERs 150-1 and 150-2 may additionally forward traffic received from an intermediate LSR 160 to a destination client 120. Intermediate LSRs 160-1 through 160-q may forward traffic along one or more established LSPs, or, in the case of a link failure, along one or more bypass LSPs. [0027], FIG. 3, a bypass tunnel from P1 to P2 via LSRs 160-2 (P3) and 160-3 (P4) to protect against a link failure between P1 and P2. The bypass tunnel from P1 to P2 via P3 and P4 may have, as shown in FIG. 3, an accumulated metric of 35 (i.e., 10+15+10). Alternatively, instead of an MPLS FastReroute Bypass protection tunnel, a MPLS FastReroute Reroute protection tunnel may be established (not shown) to protect against a link failure between P1 and P2. [0028], FIG. 4; If the link between P1 and P2 fails or is operationally shutdown, P1 immediately switches the traffic arriving in LSP “A” onto the bypass tunnel. This occurs very quickly since the bypass tunnel is already established and operational. This quick switch permits LSP “A” to continue forwarding traffic in the event of a failure. Once the forwarding change is made in router P1, P1 becomes the Point of Local Repair (PLR). As the PLR, for every LSP P1 has switched to the bypass tunnel, P1 sends a path error message (e.g., a resource reservation protocol (RSVP) PathErr message) to the originator of the LSP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Lu by incorporating the teachings of Del Regno. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to re-optimize traffic engineered label switched paths within a network that uses a label switching protocol (e.g., MPLS) (Lu, [0013]).
Lu does not teach wherein the first forwarding entry for forwarding traffic comprised in the first network apparatus is not aged;
Wang however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the first forwarding entry for forwarding traffic comprised in the first network apparatus is not aged; (Wang, [0042] Since the traffic from the node with the failed link will be redirected to the working link, the switch fabric board with the failed link will no longer see the source MAC address associated with the failed port. Thus, the MAC entry on that node board will be aged out eventually. Consequently, the packet with the destination to A will be flooded. therefore, the CPU of the switch fabric board that received the link failure notice shall set the status to `static` for all MAC entries associated with the failed link port. The table entries with the `static` status will not be aged out.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Lu by incorporating the teachings of Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to achieve high availability for the Ethernet backplane environment with link failure detection and failover switching (Wang, [0007]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are substantially similar to claim 1, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 3, the method according to claim 1
Lu-Del Regno-Wang teach wherein a Keepalive link is established between the first network apparatus and the second network apparatus; (Devarajan, [0015], in operation, an access switch may be aggregated to a pair of distribution layer switches for the purpose of link aggregation. In one example implementation of the present subject matter, the pair of distribution layer switches may be connected to each other through an ISL link for the purpose of communicating control plane traffic and data plane traffic. Further, in addition to the ISL, the distribution layer switch pair may also include a dedicated 'keep- alive' physical link for use in situations of ISL failure. The distribution layer switches may exchange keep-alive messages through the 'keep-alive' physical link to allow each distribution layer switch to ascertain that the peer switch is alive and the failure of communication is due to ISL failure, and not due to failure of the peer switch as a whole.)
after forwarding the traffic based on the first forwarding entry, (Devarajan, [0064], a block 304, the state parameters corresponding to first switch and the second switch are compared. The state parameters are indicative of control plane and forwarding plane states of the first switch and the second switch.) the method further comprises: acquiring a first apparatus attribute of the first network apparatus; (Devarajan, [0031], the communication module 212 may receive state parameters from at least one peer switch through an ISL that provides a communication link between the switch 102 and at least one peer switch of the multi-chassis link aggregation environment. As mentioned previously, the state parameters are indicative of control plane and forwarding plane states of the switch and the at least one peer switch.)
receiving a first Keepalive packet sent from the second network apparatus via the
Keepalive link; (Devarajan, [0032], FIGs.1-3; the communication module 212 may also determine failure of the ISL based on control plane and forwarding plane traffic, and keep-alive messages received from the at least one peer switch.)
wherein the first Keepalive packet includes a second apparatus attribute of the
second network apparatus; (Devarajan, [0032], FIGs.1-3; the communication module 212 may also determine failure of the ISL based on control plane and forwarding plane traffic, and keep-alive messages received from the at least one peer switch. In case the communication module 212 determines an ISL failure to have occurred, it may invoke the analysis module 1 12. In an example, the analysis module 1 12 may compare the state parameters received from the at least one peer switch with state parameters of the switch and elects an active switch from amongst the at least one peer switch and the switch based on the comparison. [examiner notes: the state parameters interpret to be the second apparatus attribute.])
determining that the first network apparatus is the network apparatus performing traffic
switchover comprising: determining an attribute relationship by comparing the first apparatus attribute and the second apparatus attribute; (Devarajan, [0031], FIGs.1-3; the communication module 212 may receive state parameters from at least one peer switch through an ISL that provides a communication link between the switch 102 and at least one peer switch of the multi-chassis link aggregation environment. As mentioned previously, the state parameters are indicative of control plane and forwarding plane states of the switch and the at least one peer switch. [0032] The communication module 212 may also determine failure of the ISL based on control plane and forwarding plane traffic, and keep-alive messages received from the at least one peer switch. In case the communication module 212 determines an ISL failure to have occurred, it may invoke the analysis module 1 12. In an example, the analysis module 1 12 may compare the state parameters received from the at least one peer switch with state parameters of the switch and elects an active switch from amongst the at least one peer switch and the switch based on the comparison. [examiner notes: the state parameters interpret to be the second apparatus attribute. The control plane and forwarding plane states of the switch and the at least one peer switch interpret to be the attribute relationship.])
determining the first network apparatus is the network apparatus performing traffic based
on the attribute relationship indicating that the second network apparatus is a primary apparatus
and the first network apparatus is a secondary apparatus. (Devarajan, [0031], FIGs.1-3; the communication module 212 may receive state parameters from at least one peer switch through an ISL that provides a communication link between the switch 102 and at least one peer switch of the multi-chassis link aggregation environment. As mentioned previously, the state parameters are indicative of control plane and forwarding plane states of the switch and the at least one peer switch. [0032] The communication module 212 may also determine failure of the ISL based on control plane and forwarding plane traffic, and keep-alive messages received from the at least one peer switch. In case the communication module 212 determines an ISL failure to have occurred, it may invoke the analysis module 1 12. In an example, the analysis module 1 12 may compare the state parameters received from the at least one peer switch with state parameters of the switch and elects an active switch from amongst the at least one peer switch and the switch based on the comparison. [examiner notes: the state parameters interpret to be the second apparatus attribute. The control plane and forwarding plane states of the switch and the at least one peer switch interpret to be the attribute relationship.])
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Claim(s) 8 is/are substantially similar to claim 3, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
2. Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Del Regno in view of Wang further in view of Wu (US 20160105306 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, the method according to claim 1
Lu-Del Regno-Wang teach wherein the first network apparatus comprises a first port, the target network apparatus comprises a second port, a communication link is established between the first port and the second port, the first port and the second port belong to a same aggregation group, the method further comprising: (Lu, [0033], FIG.2A,each one of ND 101 A and ND 101B is connected using a Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation Group (MC-LAG) 114 to the same network device 103 A of a core network. [0097], where a reliable virtual circuit is established with TCP on top of the underlying unreliable and connectionless IP protocol, the virtual circuit is identified by the source and destination network socket address pair, i.e. the sender and receiver IP address and port number.)
wherein the port status includes a Sync bit, and a value of the Sync bit is 0. (Lu, [0048] Upon receipt of the LACP PDU packets with "OUT-SYNC" bit set, ND 103A stops sending downstream data packets and reroute the downstream traffic towards the remaining active links of the MC-LAG 114, which includes the link 114A. [examiner notes: SYN (Synchronization) Bit: Encoded in bit 3 of LACPDU, where 1 = In_Sync (active) and 0 = Out_Of_Sync.])
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Lu-Del Regno-Wang do not teach sending a Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) packet to the target network apparatus, the LACP packet carrying a port status of the first port, so that the target network apparatus is to determine, based on the port status, that the first port has not completed aggregation, and disable a receiving and sending function of the second port on the communication link;
Wu however in the same field of computer networking teaches sending a Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP) packet to the target network apparatus, the LACP packet carrying a port status of the first port, so that the target network apparatus is to determine, based on the port status, that the first port has not completed aggregation, and disable a receiving and sending function of the second port on the communication link; setting the first port as a non-selected port; (Wu, [0031], when the network device receives the LACP packets forwarded by the SDN edge device, the network device may view status of local ports according to the selected ports in the LACP packets, select the selected ports of the aggregation group at local and send a message carrying the selected ports to the SDN edge device. [0032] The SDN edge device may configure the ports selected by the SDN edge device and the network device, such as configure a selection identity, according to the message. The SDN edge device may configure status of unselected ports as a blocked status. Alternatively, the SDN edge device may not do any processing on the unselected ports. The SDN controller may not designate a data forwarding path and a data forwarding rule for the unselected ports. [0041], when the SDN controller determines that any selected port in the aggregation group fails, the SDN controller may inform the network device that the selected port may be unselected and inform the SDN edge device, at which the selected port may be located, to configure the selected port as a non-selected port. The SDN controller may for example determine that a selected port has failed by passively being notified or actively making a determination, for instance the SDN controller may receive a notification from an SDN device indicating that a select port has failed, or may determine that a port has failed by monitoring the SDN for evidence of failed ports etc. [0094], the processing unit 402 may be further to inform, when the perceiving unit 403 obtains that a selected port fails, the network device that the failed port may be unselected, inform the SDN edge device, at which the failed selected port may be located, to configure the failed port as a non-selected port.)
setting the first port as a non-selected port; (Wu, [0031], the SDN edge device may configure status of unselected ports as a blocked status. [0094], the processing unit 402 may be further to inform, when the perceiving unit 403 obtains that a selected port fails, the network device that the failed port may be unselected, inform the SDN edge device, at which the failed selected port may be located, to configure the failed port as a non-selected port, inform, when the perceiving unit 403 obtains that the SDN edge device, at which a selected port may be located, disconnects with the SDN, the network device that the selected port on the SDN edge device disconnecting with the SDN may be unselected, take, when the perceiving unit 403 obtains that the failed port recovers or the SDN edge device re-connects with the SDN.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Wu by incorporating the teachings of Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to simply design and operation of the SDN (Wu, [0010]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are substantially similar to claim 2, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
3. Claim(s) 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Del Regno in view of Wang further in view of Sun (US 20140071834 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, the method according to claim 1,
Lu-Del Regno-Wang do no teach wherein prior to sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, the method further comprises: acquiring a first routing entry reaching the target network apparatus from a first routing table; wherein the first routing entry indicates a route reaching the target network apparatus through the first network apparatus; sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, comprising: sending the first packet carrying a first route to the third network apparatus so that the third network apparatus is to delete a sub-routing entry contained in a second routing entry corresponding to the first route from a second routing table and delete a sub-forwarding entry in a forwarding table based on the sub-routing entry.
Sun however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein prior to sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, the method further comprises: acquiring a first routing entry reaching the target network apparatus from a first routing table; (Sun, [0057], as shown in FIG. 2A to FIG. 2D, an existing LDP LSP tearing process includes: the upstream node of the fault point (that is, the transit node 4) detects the fault, and regenerates a routing link-state advertisement (LSA) message and performs flooding. Upstream nodes of the transit node 4, that is, transit node 3, transit node 2, and ingress node 1, will receive the LSA message sent by the transit node 4. Subsequently, each node that receives the LSA message re-calculates the route and refreshes a routing forwarding table, that is, deletes routing forwarding entries that arrive at an egress node. Each node has a different capability of calculating routes. Therefore, the existing order of deleting the routing forwarding entries is uncertain. As shown in FIG. 2B, the transit node 2 first deletes the local routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node. After refreshing the routing forwarding table, each node updates a local label forwarding table according to the refreshed routing forwarding table. That is, if the routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node is deleted, the label forwarding entry corresponding to the routing forwarding entry is deleted, and source and destination information of a label related to the label forwarding entry is deleted. [examiner notes: Routing forwarding entries are mapping records in a router's table that dictate where to send packets based on destination IP prefixes, interface, and next-hop address.])
wherein the first routing entry indicates a route reaching the target network apparatus
through the first network apparatus; (Sun, [0057], as shown in FIG. 2A to FIG. 2D, an existing LDP LSP tearing process includes: the upstream node of the fault point (that is, the transit node 4) detects the fault, and regenerates a routing link-state advertisement (LSA) message and performs flooding. Upstream nodes of the transit node 4, that is, transit node 3, transit node 2, and ingress node 1, will receive the LSA message sent by the transit node 4. Subsequently, each node that receives the LSA message re-calculates the route and refreshes a routing forwarding table, that is, deletes routing forwarding entries that arrive at an egress node. Each node has a different capability of calculating routes. Therefore, the existing order of deleting the routing forwarding entries is uncertain. As shown in FIG. 2B, the transit node 2 first deletes the local routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node. After refreshing the routing forwarding table, each node updates a local label forwarding table according to the refreshed routing forwarding table. That is, if the routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node is deleted, the label forwarding entry corresponding to the routing forwarding entry is deleted, and source and destination information of a label related to the label forwarding entry is deleted. [examiner notes: Routing forwarding entries are mapping records in a router's table that dictate where to send packets based on destination IP prefixes, interface, and next-hop address.])
sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, comprising: sending the first packet carrying a first route to the third network apparatus so that the third network apparatus is to delete a sub-routing entry contained in a second routing entry corresponding to the first route from a second routing table and delete a sub-forwarding entry in a forwarding table based on the sub-routing entry. (Sun, [0057], as shown in FIG. 2A to FIG. 2D, an existing LDP LSP tearing process includes: the upstream node of the fault point (that is, the transit node 4) detects the fault, and regenerates a routing link-state advertisement (LSA) message and performs flooding. Upstream nodes of the transit node 4, that is, transit node 3, transit node 2, and ingress node 1, will receive the LSA message sent by the transit node 4. Subsequently, each node that receives the LSA message re-calculates the route and refreshes a routing forwarding table, that is, deletes routing forwarding entries that arrive at an egress node. Each node has a different capability of calculating routes. Therefore, the existing order of deleting the routing forwarding entries is uncertain. As shown in FIG. 2B, the transit node 2 first deletes the local routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node. After refreshing the routing forwarding table, each node updates a local label forwarding table according to the refreshed routing forwarding table. That is, if the routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node is deleted, the label forwarding entry corresponding to the routing forwarding entry is deleted, and source and destination information of a label related to the label forwarding entry is deleted. [examiner notes: Routing forwarding entries are mapping records in a router's table that dictate where to send packets based on destination IP prefixes, interface, and next-hop address.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Sun by incorporating the teachings of Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for processing location information of a fault point so as to determine a location of a fault point and further improve efficiency of troubleshooting specific to an LDP LSP fault (Sun, [0006]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are substantially similar to claim 4, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
4. Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Del Regno in view of Wang in view of Sun further in view of Yuksel (US 20240195727 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5, the method according to claim 1
Lu-Del Regno-Wang-Sun teach sending the first packet to the third network apparatus comprising: sending the first packet carrying the updated first prefix entry to the third network apparatus, so that the third network apparatus is to delete a sub-routing entry contained in a second routing entry corresponding to the updated first prefix entry from a second routing table and delete a sub-forwarding entry in the forwarding table based on the sub-routing entry. (Sun, [0057], as shown in FIG. 2A to FIG. 2D, an existing LDP LSP tearing process includes: the upstream node of the fault point (that is, the transit node 4) detects the fault, and regenerates a routing link-state advertisement (LSA) message and performs flooding. Upstream nodes of the transit node 4, that is, transit node 3, transit node 2, and ingress node 1, will receive the LSA message sent by the transit node 4. Subsequently, each node that receives the LSA message re-calculates the route and refreshes a routing forwarding table, that is, deletes routing forwarding entries that arrive at an egress node. Each node has a different capability of calculating routes. Therefore, the existing order of deleting the routing forwarding entries is uncertain. As shown in FIG. 2B, the transit node 2 first deletes the local routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node. After refreshing the routing forwarding table, each node updates a local label forwarding table according to the refreshed routing forwarding table. That is, if the routing forwarding entry that arrives at the egress node is deleted, the label forwarding entry corresponding to the routing forwarding entry is deleted, and source and destination information of a label related to the label forwarding entry is deleted. [examiner notes: Routing forwarding entries are mapping records in a router's table that dictate where to send packets based on destination IP prefixes, interface, and next-hop address.])
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim 1 applies here.
Lu-Del Regno-Wang-Sun do not teach herein prior to sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, the method further comprises: acquiring a first prefix entry reaching the target network apparatus from a local Link State Database (LSDB), and updating a first cost value in the first prefix entry to a second cost value, the updated first prefix entry indicating a route reaching the target network apparatus through the first network apparatus; updating a local shortest path tree based on the updated first prefix entry; wherein the shortest path tree includes the updated first route, the updated first route includes the second cost value, and the updated first route indicates a route reaching the target network apparatus through the first network apparatus;
Yuksel however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein prior to sending the first packet to the third network apparatus, the method further comprises: acquiring a first prefix entry reaching the target network apparatus from a local Link State Database (LSDB), and updating a first cost value in the first prefix entry to a second cost value, the updated first prefix entry indicating a route reaching the target network apparatus through the first network apparatus; (Yuksel, [0064], when an active DV update arrives while current DV entry for the same destination is inactive, BSDVR chooses the new active entry, if the new entry cost is below infinity. This is shown in FIG. 7. E sends an active DV update {c.sub.2, 1} informing A about the existence of an active path towards the destination C with a finite distance c.sub.2. Since A's existing DV entry [c.sub.1, 0] for destination C is inactive, it is best for A to install the new path with the cost l.sub.1+c.sub.2 regardless of how c.sub.1 compares to this active path's length. This is simply because of the fact that an active path is reachable while an inactive path is unreachable, and hence an active path is preferable. An exceptional case is that the DV update may be poisoned, which will present an active path with infinite cost as illustrated in FIG. 8. This happens when E has been using A to reach C and A has not informed E about the failure yet. Observing the ∞ cost value in the DV update, A should not accept the active path via E as that would constitute a loop.)
updating a local shortest path tree based on the updated first prefix entry; (Yuksel, [0050], in the example shown in FIG. 4, the link B→C 415 is disconnected, which causes new active shortest paths to be calculated.)
wherein the shortest path tree includes the updated first route, the updated first route includes the second cost value, and the updated first route indicates a route reaching the target network apparatus through the first network apparatus; (Yuksel, [0050], in the example shown in FIG. 4, the link B→C 415 is disconnected, which causes new active shortest paths to be calculated. [0064], when an active DV update arrives while current DV entry for the same destination is inactive, BSDVR chooses the new active entry, if the new entry cost is below infinity. This is shown in FIG. 7. E sends an active DV update {c.sub.2, 1} informing A about the existence of an active path towards the destination C with a finite distance c.sub.2. Since A's existing DV entry [c.sub.1, 0] for destination C is inactive, it is best for A to install the new path with the cost l.sub.1+c.sub.2 regardless of how c.sub.1 compares to this active path's length. This is simply because of the fact that an active path is reachable while an inactive path is unreachable, and hence an active path is preferable. An exceptional case is that the DV update may be poisoned, which will present an active path with infinite cost as illustrated in FIG. 8. This happens when E has been using A to reach C and A has not informed E about the failure yet. Observing the ∞ cost value in the DV update, A should not accept the active path via E as that would constitute a loop.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Yuksel by incorporating the teachings of Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to avoids the count-to-infinity problem and operates with control overhead less than traditional DV routing by an order of magnitude, leading to much better convergence times for failures (Yuksel, [0015]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are substantially similar to claim 5, and is thus rejected under substantially the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449