Tunnel Sub-interfaces Using Flow Label Indexing
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Layer three tunnels in computer networks, such as GRE or IPsec tunnels, do not allow for sub-interfaces, leading to increased processing, bandwidth, and memory requirements due to the need for separate tunnels for different purposes, especially in secured environments.
Innovation Solution
Utilizing the flow label in tunnel headers to define sub-interfaces within layer three tunnels, allowing multiple routing instances to share the same tunnel by populating the flow label with a routing instance identifier to index sub-interfaces, thereby reducing the need for parallel tunnels.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If separate tunnels are established for different routing instances, then routing instances can be properly separated and secured, but processing, bandwidth, and memory requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent merges multiple routing instances into a single tunnel by using sub-interfaces differentiated by flow labels. Instead of creating separate tunnel instances for each routing instance, the invention combines them into one tunnel while maintaining logical separation through the flow label field in packet headers, thereby reducing processing overhead and memory requirements while preserving routing instance separation.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent makes a single tunnel interface universal by enabling it to handle multiple routing instances simultaneously through sub-interfaces. The tunnel interface is designed to process packets from different routing instances by examining flow labels, allowing one tunnel to perform the function of multiple separate tunnels would otherwise be needed.
2Reliability
If separate tunnels are established for different routing instances, then proper routing separation is achieved, but bandwidth requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The patent combines multiple routing instances into a single tunnel infrastructure, allowing them to share the same bandwidth resources. By using sub-interfaces with flow label differentiation, the invention enables multiple routing instances to coexist in one tunnel, thereby reducing the total bandwidth consumption compared to having separate tunnels for each instance.
3Adaptability or versatility
If sub-interfaces are added to layer three tunnels, then traffic separation for different routing instances is enabled, but tunnel complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent introduces flow labels as an intermediary mechanism to enable sub-interfaces within layer three tunnels. The flow label field acts as a mediator that carries routing instance identification information without requiring fundamental changes to the tunnel protocol, thereby enabling traffic separation while keeping the tunnel configuration relatively simple and compatible with existing tunneling protocols.
4Device complexity
If the flow label field is used to define sub-interfaces, then resource overhead is reduced, but compatibility with existing tunnel protocols may be affected
Solution Approach 1:
The patent changes the usage parameter of the flow label field from its traditional quality-of-service function to a routing instance identification function. By repurposing this existing field in packet headers, the invention reduces resource overhead compared to creating new fields or protocols, while maintaining compatibility with existing tunnel protocols that already support flow label processing.
Data Source
AI summary
In one implementation, sub-interfaces are defined in Layer three (L3) tunnels, such as generic routing encapsulization (GRE) or Internet protocol security (IPsec) tunnels. Sub-interfaces inside a L3 tunnel may be preferred to using several L3 tunnels. The flow label of the tunnel header is used to define sub-interfaces of a tunnel interface. The flow label is populated with a routing instance identifier to index the sub-interfaces.