Optical Network Path Validation with Complete Feedback Collection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In optical network control planes, when multiple nodes in a path fail to meet validation criteria, the conventional approach leads to repeated crankbacks, causing traffic disruptions and inefficiencies, as the source node only receives feedback from the first point of failure, unaware of subsequent validation failures.

Innovation Solution

The network routing systems and methods continue the validation process along the computed path, collecting feedback from all nodes with validation failures, and send a release message from the destination node, allowing the source node to recompute a new path excluding failing nodes, thus avoiding subsequent crankbacks.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of information

If the conventional approach is used where the first node to fail validation issues a release or crankback, then the source node receives feedback quickly, but the source node is unaware of subsequent validation failures and may cause repeated crankbacks and traffic disruptions

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvefeedback informationVSAvoidpath validation reliability

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism where validation failure information is propagated along the path to the destination node, which then sends a release message containing complete feedback about all validation failures to the source node. This allows the source node to receive comprehensive feedback about all nodes that failed validation, enabling informed path recomputation without repeated crankbacks.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary validation of all nodes in the path before final path selection. By validating all nodes upfront and collecting feedback from all validation failures, the system prevents subsequent crankbacks and ensures the source node has complete information before committing to a path, thereby avoiding repeated disruptions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If validation continues along the computed path to collect feedback from all nodes, then the source node can make informed decisions about new paths, but the validation process takes longer and introduces additional complexity

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepath selection accuracyVSAvoidvalidation time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent maintains continuous validation action along the entire computed path, ensuring that all nodes are validated and feedback is collected from all validation failures. This continuous process, though time-consuming, ensures the source node receives complete information for accurate path recomputation, justifying the time investment through improved path selection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs all validation actions preliminarily before final path selection. By validating all nodes upfront and collecting complete feedback, the system ensures accurate path recomputation is possible, though this preliminary validation does increase the overall time required before a new path can be established.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Device complexity

If the source node receives feedback only from the first point of failure, then the validation process is simple and fast, but the source node cannot avoid subsequent failures and traffic disruptions occur

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvevalidation process complexityVSAvoidpath establishment efficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a feedback mechanism that propagates validation failure information along the entire path to the destination node. The destination node then includes complete feedback about all validation failures in the release message sent to the source node. This comprehensive feedback mechanism, while increasing complexity, enables the source node to make informed path recomputation decisions and avoids repeated crankbacks, thereby improving overall productivity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary validation of all nodes in the path before final path selection. By validating all nodes upfront and collecting complete feedback, the system enables informed path recomputation that avoids subsequent failures, improving path establishment efficiency despite the increased preliminary complexity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS9237090B2Network routing systems and methods for validation of paths subsequent to validation failure

Publication Date: 2016.01.12 CIENA CORP

AI summary

A method, a network, and a node include computing a path by a source node; sending a message to nodes in the path with associated validation criteria; locally checking the validation criteria at each of the nodes in the path; if the validation criteria is satisfied at the node, forwarding the message to the next node in the path; else there is a validation criteria failure at the node, appending feedback data to the message, converting the message to a validation message, and forwarding the validation message to the next node in the path; and at a destination node, if there are no validation criteria failures, then establishing the connection; else issuing a release message to the source node with all the feedback such that the source node can compute a new path exclusive of nodes where the validation criteria fails.