Ethernet MEP Priority Fault Filtering
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional Ethernet networks lack a procedure to handle faults reported by Maintenance End Points (MEPs) within the same Maintenance Association (MA), leading to a 'worst case' behavior where all MEPs simultaneously report faults, causing unwanted alarm conditions and service outages.
Innovation Solution
Assigning a configured priority to each MEP, which is transmitted via Type-Length-Value (TLV) in Continuity Check Messages (CCMs), allowing nodes to compare and act upon received priorities, thereby prioritizing fault reporting and ignoring or raising alarms based on configured settings.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If all MEPs in the same Maintenance Association report faults simultaneously, then fault detection coverage is improved, but alarm flooding and service outages increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent assigns different priority levels to different MEPs within the same Maintenance Association, creating local differentiation in fault reporting behavior. High-priority MEPs (such as head-end nodes) report faults immediately, while low-priority MEPs (such as leaf nodes) suppress their fault reports when high-priority faults are detected, thereby reducing alarm flooding while maintaining comprehensive fault detection coverage
Solution Approach 2:
The system pre-configures priority levels for each MEP before faults occur. When a fault is detected, the pre-established priority hierarchy immediately determines which MEPs should report and which should suppress reports, eliminating the need for dynamic negotiation and reducing the time to prevent alarm flooding
2Object-generated harmful factors
If priority-based filtering is implemented, then alarm flooding is reduced, but fault detection precision may be affected
Solution Approach 1:
Different priority levels are assigned to different MEPs based on their network position and importance. Head-end MEPs with high priority ensure critical faults are always reported, while leaf-node MEPs with low priority suppress reports during high-priority fault conditions. This local differentiation maintains detection precision for critical faults while filtering non-critical alarms
Solution Approach 2:
The priority level acts as an intermediary mechanism that mediates between complete fault reporting and alarm suppression. By introducing this intermediate layer, the system can selectively filter alarms based on priority without losing critical fault information, thus maintaining detection precision while reducing alarm flooding
Data Source
AI summary
Systems and methods for prioritizing Connectivity Fault Management conditioning actions in a node in an Ethernet network include transmitting a configured priority of a Maintenance End Point (MEP) associated with the node to other nodes in the Ethernet network; receiving a fault notification from a remote MEP with a received priority configured at the remote MEP; and performing an action based on a comparison between the configured priority and the received priority at the node.