Diverse Route Determination Using Permitted Network Risks
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current network routing mechanisms inadequately address diverse route calculations in the presence of certain network risks, treating all risks uniformly and failing to account for low-probability failures that can be tolerated, leading to inefficient protection strategies.
Innovation Solution
Introduce the concept of 'permitted network risks' that can be shared if necessary, allowing routes to include specific risks determined or specified by the operator, thereby enhancing route diversity calculations.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If conventional binary logic is used for SRG risk exclusion in route computation, then network reliability is improved by avoiding common failures, but route flexibility and complexity are worsened due to strict exclusion requirements
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the parameter of risk treatment from binary (exclude/include) to probabilistic (permitted risk levels). By assigning different risk levels to various SRGs and allowing routes to share risks within permitted thresholds, the system maintains reliability while reducing computation complexity through more flexible routing options
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces dynamic risk level assignments where SRGs can be dynamically categorized into different risk levels based on their failure probabilities and network importance. This dynamic classification allows the route computation to adaptively balance reliability requirements with routing flexibility
2Reliability
If complete node diversity is enforced for MPLS tunnel protection, then fault tolerance is improved, but implementation cost and difficulty are worsened
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies local quality by differentiating between critical and non-critical network risks. Instead of uniformly enforcing complete node diversity everywhere, the system applies diversity requirements selectively based on the risk level and importance of specific network elements, making implementation more practical while maintaining essential fault tolerance
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements partial diversity by allowing routes to share certain low-risk network elements while maintaining diversity for high-risk elements. This partial approach to node diversity reduces implementation complexity and cost while still providing adequate protection against significant failures
3Stability of the object's composition
If all network risks are treated uniformly in route computation, then consistency is improved, but route optimization is worsened due to inability to tolerate low-probability risks
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments network risks into different levels (e.g., critical, moderate, low risk) based on failure probabilities and network impact. This segmentation allows the route computation to treat different risks differently, optimizing routes by permitting low-probability risks while strictly avoiding high-probability risks, thereby improving computational efficiency
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4
AI summary
Systems and methods for permitted network risks in diverse route determinations introduce the concept of permitted network risks which are risks that may be present in a disjoint path calculation. This removes the binary logic in conventional shared risk path determination, i.e., either exclude or include. With the present disclosure, a network risk may be excluded (must never use) or shared (may use if needed). In an embodiment, if a route for a backup tunnel or path excluding all network risks is not possible, then a route for the backup tunnel or path may be found excluding some network risks of the primary tunnel or path except specified network risks that are determined/specified as permitted network risks. Such permitted network risks can be explicitly specified by a network operator or implicitly determined based on a category (e.g., node and/or equipment may be shared network risks whereas links may not).