“Deadlock Avoidance Using Modified Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management Signaling” in Patent Application Approval Process (USPTO 20190158350)

Network Business Daily |

2019 JUN 12 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Network Business Daily -- A patent application by the inventors A, Vamsi Krishna (Bangalore, IN); BELLAMKONDA, Sudheendra (Bangalore, IN); RAMANA, Paleti Venkata (Bangalore, IN); V.K., Prabhu Raj (Bangalore, IN); KJ, Viswanath (Bangalore, IN), filed on , was made available online on , according to news reporting originating from Washington, D.C., by NewsRx correspondents.

This patent application is assigned to Juniper Networks Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States).

The following quote was obtained by the news editors from the background information supplied by the inventors: “The Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEEE) 802.1ag standard, also known as Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management (CFM), defines protocols and practices for Operations, Administration, and Management (OAM) for paths through local area networks (LANs), metropolitan area networks (MANs), and wide area networks (WANs). The standard defines protocols and procedures for monitoring, detecting, verifying, and isolating connectivity failures in various networks.”

In addition to the background information obtained for this patent application, NewsRx journalists also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent application: “According to some possible implementations, a first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device may include one or more processors to identify that a first interface of the first MEP device is associated with a connectivity failure. The one or more processors may provide, to a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM), that includes a MEP identifier of the first MEP device, based on identifying that the first interface of the first MEP device is associated with the connectivity failure. The first CCM may cause the second MEP device to designate a second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The one or more processors may receive, from the second MEP device, a second CCM, that includes the MEP identifier of the first MEP device and information indicating that the second interface of the second MEP device is offline, based on the second MEP device designating the second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The one or more processors may execute a rule to avoid a deadlock situation based on the second CCM including the MEP identifier of the first MEP device.

“According to some possible implementations, a non-transitory computer-readable medium may store one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device, cause the one or more processors to identify that a first interface of the first MEP device is associated with a connectivity failure. The one or more instructions may cause the one or more processors to provide, to a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM), that includes a MEP identifier of the first MEP device, based on identifying that the first interface of the first MEP device is associated with the connectivity failure. The first CCM may cause the second MEP device to designate a second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The one or more instructions may cause the one or more processors to receive, from the second MEP device, a second CCM, that includes the MEP identifier of the first MEP device and information indicating that the second interface of the second MEP device is offline based on the second MEP device designating the second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The one or more instructions may cause the one or more processors to execute a rule to avoid a deadlock situation, involving the first interface and the second interface, based on the second CCM including the MEP identifier of the first MEP device.

“According to some possible implementations, a method may include identifying, by a first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device, that a first interface of the first MEP device is unavailable. The method may include providing, by the first MEP device and to a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM), that includes a MEP identifier of the first MEP device, based on identifying that the first interface of the first MEP device is unavailable. The first CCM may cause the second MEP device to designate a second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The method may include receiving, by the first MEP device and from the second MEP device, a second CCM, that includes the MEP identifier of the first MEP device and information indicating that the second interface of the second MEP device is offline, based on the second MEP device designating the second interface of the second MEP device as being offline. The method may include executing, by the first MEP device, a rule to avoid a deadlock situation based on the second CCM including the MEP identifier of the first MEP device.”

The claims supplied by the inventors are:

“1-20. (canceled)

“21. A first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors to: receive, from a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM) based on an interface status of the second MEP device, the first CCM including a MEP identifier of the second MEP device; perform an action based on an action profile and based on receiving the first CCM; and provide, to the second MEP device, a second CCM that includes the MEP identifier of the second MEP device and information indicating that the action was performed, the second CCM to cause the second MEP device to execute a rule to avoid a deadlock situation.

“22. The first MEP device of claim 21, where the one or more processors are further to: analyze, after receiving the first CCM, the first CCM to identify values associated with a particular field of the first CCM; and detect, based on the values, that the interface status of the second MEP device is associated with a connectivity failure.

“23. The first MEP device of claim 21, where the one or more processors, when performing the action, are to: prevent network traffic from being received via an interface of the first MEP based on determining that the second MEP is associated with a connectivity failure.

“24. The first MEP device of claim 21, where the one or more processors are further to: store information that identifies that the first MEP device performed the action.

“25. The first MEP device of claim 21, where the one or more processors are further to: designate an interface status the first MEP device as being offline based on the action profile.

“26. The first MEP device of claim 25, where the one or more processors are further to: advertise the second CCM to one or more other MEP devices based on designating the interface status of the first MEP device as being offline.

“27. The first MEP device of claim 21, where the one or more processors are further to: receive, from the second MEP device, a third CCM that identifies the interface status of the second MEP device as being online; and designate an interface status of the first MEP device as being online based on the third CCM.

“28. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, the instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors by a first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM) based on an interface status of the second MEP device, the first CCM including a MEP identifier of the second MEP device; perform an action based on an action profile and receiving the first CCM; and provide, to the second MEP device, a second CCM that includes the MEP identifier of the second MEP device and information indicating that the action was performed, the second CCM to cause the second MEP device to execute a rule to avoid a deadlock situation.

“29. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, where the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: analyze, after receiving the first CCM, the first CCM to identify values associated with a particular field of the first CCM; and detect, based on the values, that the interface status of the second MEP device is associated with a connectivity failure.

“30. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, where the one or more instructions, that perform the action, cause the one or more processors to: prevent network traffic from being received via an interface of the first MEP based on determining that the second MEP is associated with a connectivity failure.

“31. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, where the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: store information that identifies that the first MEP device performed the action.

“32. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, where the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: designate an interface status the first MEP device as being offline based on the action profile.

“33. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 32, where the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: advertise the second CCM to one or more other MEP devices based on designating the interface status of the first MEP device as being offline.

“34. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28, where the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: receive, from the second MEP device, a third CCM, that identifies the interface status of the second MEP device as being online; and designate an interface status of the first MEP device as being online based on the third CCM.

“35. A method comprising: receiving, by a first maintenance endpoint (MEP) device and from a second MEP device, a first continuity check message (CCM) based on an interface status of the second MEP device the first CCM including a MEP identifier of the second MEP device; performing, by the first MEP device, an action based on an action profile and receiving the first CCM; and providing, by the first MEP device and to the second MEP device, a second CCM that includes the MEP identifier of the second MEP device and information indicating that the action was performed, the second CCM to cause the second MEP device to execute a rule to avoid a deadlock situation.

“36. The method of claim 35, further comprising: analyzing, after receiving the first CCM, the first CCM to identify values associated with a particular field of the first CCM; and detecting, based on the values, that the interface status of the second MEP device is associated with a connectivity failure.

“37. The method of claim 35, where performing the action comprises: preventing network traffic from being received via an interface of the first MEP based on determining that the second MEP is associated with a connectivity failure.

“38. The method of claim 35, comprising: storing information that identifies that the first MEP device performed the action.

“39. The method of claim 35, comprising: designating an interface status the first MEP device as being offline based on the action profile; and advertising the second CCM to one or more other MEP devices based on designating the interface status of the first MEP device as being offline.

“40. The method of claim 35, comprising: receiving, from the second MEP device, a third CCM, that identifies the interface status of the second MEP device as being online; and designating an interface status of the first MEP device as being online based on the third CCM.”

URL and more information on this patent application, see: A, Vamsi Krishna; BELLAMKONDA, Sudheendra; RAMANA, Paleti Venkata; V.K., Prabhu Raj; KJ, Viswanath. Deadlock Avoidance Using Modified Ethernet Connectivity Fault Management Signaling. Filed and posted . Patent URL: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220190158350%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20190158350&RS=DN/20190158350

(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)

DISCLOSURE: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer

Comments

Watchlist

Symbol Last Price Change % Change
AAPL

     
AMZN

     
HD

     
JPM

     
IBM

     

INTERVIEW: CEO Jason Goodman - Atlantic WeedBoard

Equities.com Host & Contributor Silvia Davi interviewing CEO of Atlantic WeedBoard, Jason Goodman.