Geneve OAM Flag Queue Assignment for SDN Control Packets
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In software-defined networks (SDNs), control packets such as BFD and BGP can be dropped or delayed under high load, leading to unnecessary network disruptions due to the lack of reliable delivery, especially when mixed with data packets over virtual and physical interfaces, and the OAM field in Geneve encapsulation is often misused.
Innovation Solution
The solution involves identifying control packets based on pattern matching, encapsulating them as Geneve packets with a set OAM flag, and allocating them to a separate processing queue with enhanced quality of service to ensure timely delivery.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If packets are routed based on destination IP address only, then routing simplicity is maintained, but traffic engineering flexibility is limited
Solution Approach 1:
The routing decision is segmented into multiple independent fields: destination IP address (for basic routing) and packet priority (for traffic engineering). This allows flexible traffic management without complicating the overall routing mechanism, as each field can be processed independently by switching elements.
Solution Approach 2:
The Geneve header acts as an intermediary structure that carries both the destination IP address and packet priority information. This intermediary enables the network to make routing decisions based on multiple factors while maintaining compatibility with existing IP routing infrastructure.
2Adaptability or versatility
If packet priority is added to routing decisions, then traffic management capability is improved, but header processing complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The packet priority field serves multiple functions: it enables traffic engineering, QoS differentiation, and priority-based scheduling. By making this single field multi-functional, the patent avoids adding multiple separate mechanisms, thereby limiting the increase in processing complexity while enhancing traffic management capability.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the parameter used for routing decisions from a single destination IP address to a composite parameter including both destination IP and packet priority. This parameter change enables sophisticated traffic management while maintaining relatively simple processing, as the priority field is a single additional parameter rather than a complex data structure.
3Reliability
If existing IP routing protocols are used, then protocol simplicity is maintained, but QoS support is insufficient
Solution Approach 1:
The packet priority field is nested within the existing IP packet structure, specifically in the Geneve header. This nesting allows QoS functionality to be added without creating a separate protocol layer, thereby maintaining protocol simplicity while improving QoS support. The priority field is embedded within the existing packet format rather than adding a new outer layer.
Solution Approach 2:
The routing decision mechanism is designed to be self-service by automatically considering both destination IP and packet priority fields without requiring complex external control. The switching elements can independently make routing decisions based on these fields, enabling QoS support while avoiding the need for complex centralized control protocols.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
Described herein are systems, methods, and software to manage the identification of control packets in an encapsulation header. In one implementation, a computing system may receive a Geneve packet at a network interface and determine that the Geneve packet includes an Operations and Management (OAM) flag. Once the OAM flag is identified, the computing system can select a processing queue from a plurality of processing queues for a main processing system of the computing system based on the OAM flag and assign the Geneve packet to the processing queue.