TRILL Routing Bridge Nickname Conflict Resolution
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
In TRILL networks, nickname conflicts between Routing Bridges (RBs) can lead to network instability and require efficient conflict resolution mechanisms to maintain data traffic and routing stability.
Innovation Solution
A method and device for processing nickname conflicts in TRILL networks, where a first RB determines if it has a lower priority than a second RB by comparing nickname priorities and system identities, and modifies its nickname or broadcasts an LSP to resolve conflicts, ensuring accurate routing information and minimizing network disruptions.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Device complexity
If a dynamic nickname acquisition protocol is used to select nicknames for RBs, then the TRILL header size is reduced and forwarding lookups are simplified, but nickname conflicts may occur between RBs leading to network instability
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies preliminary action by having RBs proactively detect nickname conflicts through LSP comparison before they cause network instability. When an RB detects a nickname conflict, it immediately initiates resolution by modifying its nickname or broadcasting an LSP to force other RBs to change, preventing the conflict from disrupting data traffic forwarding.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent implements feedback mechanisms where RBs continuously monitor the network for nickname conflicts by comparing received LSPs with their local nickname information. This feedback loop enables automatic conflict detection and resolution, where the system responds to detected conflicts by triggering nickname modifications or LSP broadcasts, thereby maintaining network stability while using dynamic nicknames.
2Reliability
If nickname conflicts are resolved by forcing RBs to change nicknames, then routing stability is maintained, but data traffic forwarding may be temporarily interrupted
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies partial action by selectively resolving only the specific nickname conflicts that are detected, rather than forcing all RBs to change nicknames. When a conflict is detected, only the involved RBs (one or two) are forced to change their nicknames, while the rest of the network continues normal operation. This minimizes the scope of disruption and reduces temporary interruptions in data traffic forwarding.
3Reliability
If an RB broadcasts an LSP to force other RBs to change nicknames, then nickname conflicts are resolved, but additional network traffic is generated
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts and isolates the conflict resolution mechanism to only the necessary RBs involved in nickname conflicts. Instead of broadcasting LSPs network-wide, only the RBs that have detected conflicts or are forced to change nicknames broadcast their LSPs. This extraction approach limits the generation of additional network traffic to only the minimal necessary communications for resolving specific conflicts.
Data Source
AI summary
A first routing bridge (RB) according to an example determines whether there is a nickname conflict between nicknames of the first RB and a second RB. If there is a nickname conflict, the first RB determines whether it is a lower priority RB and may modify its nickname if it is lower priority and based on a broadcast of link state packet from the second RB.