WO1998031125A1 - Ordinateurs d'un reseau repartis en plusieurs sites - Google Patents

Ordinateurs d'un reseau repartis en plusieurs sites Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO1998031125A1
WO1998031125A1 PCT/US1997/023955 US9723955W WO9831125A1 WO 1998031125 A1 WO1998031125 A1 WO 1998031125A1 US 9723955 W US9723955 W US 9723955W WO 9831125 A1 WO9831125 A1 WO 9831125A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
computer
network
server computer
server
priority
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US1997/023955
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Steven M. Grimm
Marc P. Kwiatkowski
Original Assignee
Mpath Interactive, Inc.
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Mpath Interactive, Inc. filed Critical Mpath Interactive, Inc.
Priority to AU58078/98A priority Critical patent/AU5807898A/en
Publication of WO1998031125A1 publication Critical patent/WO1998031125A1/fr

Links

Classifications

    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L9/00—Cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for secret or secure communications; Network security protocols
    • H04L9/40—Network security protocols
    • H—ELECTRICITY
    • H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
    • H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
    • H04L69/00—Network arrangements, protocols or services independent of the application payload and not provided for in the other groups of this subclass
    • H04L69/14—Multichannel or multilink protocols

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to the field of networked computers. More particularly, the present invention relates to multi-homed network computers.
  • FIG. 1 a schematic representation of a prior art data-communications network 1 is shown.
  • Multi-ported digital devices that receive and retransmit data known as routers 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 are shown. Some of the routers are shown to be inter-connected by point to point data- communications links 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Moreover, routers 22, 23, and 24 are shown to be interconnected by a multi-point data- communications link 12.
  • Computers known as Servers 30, 31, and 32 are shown. As shown, Servers may be connected to routers by way of a point to point link 7, or a multipoint link 12.
  • Clients 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 are shown. Some Clients 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are shown to be connected to a router 21 by means of a multipoint link 11. Another Client 45 is shown connected to a router 25 by a point to point link 8.
  • Clients 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 are shown connected by dial-up Modem data-communications links 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 which utilize the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) 80.
  • Client 47 is shown as not presently connected to the network, it may become connected by the ordinary telephone call setup procedure known as dialing on the PSTN 80. Dialing could be used to complete a link between Modem and telephone line 70 at the client to (for example) Modem and telephone line 71 at the router.
  • Such a network as described is well known in the art, however, the network described above is much smaller than the typical network which more likely has thousands of Clients and dozens of routers and Servers.
  • IP Internet Protocol
  • TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol
  • UDP/IP User Datagram Protocol
  • Client-Server class of applications Another class of applications well known in the art is the Client-Server class of applications.
  • Client-Server applications typically, but not always, have one or more computers (known as Client computers or simply Clients) continually attended by persons and one or more computers (known as Server computers or simply Servers) that are not typically attended by persons.
  • Client-Server applications are most commonly distributed applications.
  • Distributed internetworked applications that are also Client-Server applications are termed multi-user internetworked Client-Server applications.
  • Typical examples of multi-user internetworked Client-Server applications are the multi-player games found in the online gaming industry.
  • each Client computer connects through an internetwork to the same Server computer shared by all the Client computers that participate in the game, or alternatively, each Client computer connects through an internetwork to the same set of Server computers shared by all the Client computers that participate in the game.
  • the quality of game play is likely to depend upon the properties of the data-communications links between Clients and Server or Servers, since each Client needs to interact with Server or Servers by means of data message transmissions.
  • the salient properties of these links include the speed or bandwidth of the link in bit/s. and the data message transit time.
  • Data messages are also known as packets.
  • the packet transit time is termed the latency of the link.
  • both the average latency and the variability of the latency of the links have the potential to profoundly affect the quality of game play. It is often the variability of latency that causes the most intractable and most annoying impairments to game play quality.
  • IXPs Internet Exchange Points
  • Networks 132, 133, 134 are shown to be interconnected by way of multipoint link 111.
  • This link 111 is shown as being of ring topology and constitutes an IXP.
  • These network interconnection links are typically of ring topology using Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) technology.
  • SONET Synchronous Optical Network
  • any multipoint topology may be used provided it is of a high bandwidth and degrades gracefully under overload conditions.
  • the other two networks 130, 131 are connected to a different IXP 110.
  • the two IXPs are connected together by way of routers 101, 102 and a high speed point to point link 120.
  • the entirety of Fig. 2 represents a small internetwork and for the internetwork as drawn every packet of data that travels from a source computer in one network to a destination computer in another network must pass through one or more IXPs. Such internetworking is well known in the art.
  • IP Flow control for an IP based internetwork functions by dint of the packet sending computer's ability to detect packet loss within the internetwork.
  • Well behaved sending computers slow down their rate of sending when they detect packet loss.
  • Badly behaved packet sending computers fail to slow down their sending rate and, as a result, tend to experience severe packet loss rates at times.
  • Congestion at IXPs is thus a common condition for IP based internetworks as a direct consequence of the design of the flow control mechanism. Thus, some packet loss is a fairly normal operating condition for any large internetwork including the Internet.
  • a small to moderate rate of packet loss is not considered undesirable since if there were no packet loss then the flow control mechanism could not operate and the internetwork would be severely under utilized (which is not considered to be a good price/performance tradeoff point) .
  • Data communication between internetworked computers, especially computers on the Internet is based upon the use of a hierarchical addressing scheme.
  • the hierarchical nature of the addressing scheme make it possible for packets to be correctly routed from one network to another with each network knowing little or nothing of the address to circuit mapping of the other network. Since the size of a network is constrained, inter alia, by the computational effort of administering the address to circuit mappings, the use of hierarchical addressing becomes mandatory for a large internetwork.
  • routing tables The information which represents these addresses to circuit mappings is sometimes known as routing tables.
  • the computational effort referred to is that of maintaining and distributing the routing tables which are somewhat volatile owing to their nature.
  • the volatility of the routing tables is due in large measure to the enormous size of the internetwork and the finite rate of information propagation within it.
  • Some networks have dedicated bilateral links with each other, commonly to try to bypass congestion at the IXPs.
  • the use of such links may avoid congestion in some instances but it complicates address mappings and thus increases the routing load on each network. Indeed if, in the limiting case, two networks were joined by extremely fast bilateral links then the two networks would behave (from a performance standpoint) as though they were one larger networks and the combined network could be larger than the optimum size for each network based on routing computational load.
  • the bilateral links carry much the same types of traffic as the IXP they bypass, they would typically be subject to the same types of congestion, mitigated by the additional capacity introduced and aggravated by the additional routing computational load and slight fragmentation of the hierarchical addressing so introduced.
  • bilateral links therefore are of significant benefit where the traffic between the two networks is atypical of the traffic patterns in the internetwork more generally. But bilateral links tend to be ineffective in linking general purpose networks such as the networks operated by common carrier style network providers unless those networks are significantly smaller than the typical network in the internetwork.
  • What is reguired is a communication network system that permits network computers to efficiently communicate with other computers.
  • the communication network should provide speed and bandwidth at a good balance between price and performance. Packet loss should be maintained at an appropriate rate.
  • the communication network should provide data-communication links between computers in a manner that increases the quality of game play.
  • the present invention is a novel multi-homed computer network system and method that permits network computers to efficiently communicate with other computers.
  • the multi-homed computer network system is a communication network that provides speed and bandwidth at a good balance between price and performance. Packet loss is maintained at an appropriate rate.
  • the multi-homed computer network system provides data- communication links between computers in a manner that increases the quality of game play.
  • the present invention comprises a multi- homed computer network system.
  • the multi-homed computer network system includes a server computer, a client computer, and a communication network.
  • the server computer has multiple different addresses that identify the server computer.
  • the communication network couples the server computer and the client computer, such that the communication network server computer and the client computer are able to communicate with each other.
  • the communication network provides at least two communication paths between the server computer and the client computer.
  • Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of a prior art data-communications network 1.
  • Figure 2 shows multiple networks with a plurality Servers, Clients, and routers that communicate outside each network
  • Figure 3 shows part of an internetwork with Client computers residing on separate networks sharing the use of a Server.
  • the invention provides for the possibility of more than one data communications route being in use, either simultaneously or not, between each Client and each Server. Multiple packets that travel between the same endpoints use better or worse data communications routes according to adjudged need and to deter over-subscription of at least one of the said data communications routes. Typically non-priority traffic between networks passes through one or more IXPs whereas priority traffic bypasses one or more IXPs. It is a feature of the invention that at least one Server computer may be reached by the use of any one of two or more internetwork addresses. Such a Server computer is termed a multi-homed Server. It is a further feature of the invention that traffic from any or all of the Client computers may be routed to particular internetwork addresses on any of the said multi-homed Server depending upon criteria that include the nature of the traffic to be routed.
  • a number of Client computers each interconnect to the same Server computer in order to exchange data with each other or with a shared data set or a shared program or any combination thereof.
  • the Server computer has more than one internetwork address associated with it and correspondingly more than one data-communication route exists between each Client computer and the Server computer.
  • FIG. 3 a part of an internetwork is shown.
  • Client computers 260, 261 which reside on separate networks are to share the use of a Server 250.
  • Data exchanged between Client 260 and Server 250 remains entirely within one network.
  • Data exchanged between Client 261 and Server 250 must travel between the two networks shown, such data must travel either by way of router 221 and IXP 300 or else it must travel by way of router 231 and dedicated bilateral link 290. Both routes will be used depending on the perceived priority of the particular packet, with the lower priority packets using the IXP.
  • Server 251 were to be used instead of Server 250 then all traffic between Client 261 and Server 251 would have to travel by way of the IXP 300 and could not travel by way of the dedicated bilateral link 290.
  • One of the network addresses of the Server computer is designated as its default address.
  • the Server computer is located in physical proximity to routers and data communication trunk circuits belonging to the network that has a hierarchical network address directly above the default address of the Server computer. This network is said to be the home network and is said to own the default address of the Server computer.
  • Non priority packet traffic to and from the Server uses the default address in all cases.
  • Priority traffic to and from the Server computer may use any of the addresses. Since the Server computer is not typically physically located at an IXP it will not typically be physically located near the router or trunks of any network except its home network. In order to preserve hierarchical addressing and to minimize the undesirable routing of any priority traffic through IXPs, it becomes necessary that a dedicated communications link be provided between the Server computer and a high speed port of a router on each network that owns a non-default address assigned to the Server computer. Internet routers with high speed ports are well known in the art. The dedicated circuits carry only traffic originating in or destined for the Server computer.
  • the Server computer does not export routing capability into the home network in order to avoid any possibility of attracting non-priority traffic to any of the dedicated circuits.
  • the Client computer locates the Server computer's default address. This default address may be obtained by methods well known in the art such as Domain Network Services (DNS) .
  • DNS Domain Network Services
  • Client computer's traffic is to be given priority
  • the Client computer starts to use one of the non-default addresses.
  • Each Client computer may use various means to discover the various network addresses associated with each Server computer.
  • Each Client computer may then select the most beneficial internetwork address for the data-communications route between that Client computer and the Server computer.
  • the Client computers may select the internetwork address of the Server computer based on a variety of performance criteria.
  • a third-party arbitrating computer program located in a Server may assign to the Client the address to be used for priority traffic.
  • a device known as an address translation unit (ATU)
  • ATU address translation unit
  • the ATU forwards packets between the said Client and Server computers converting one of the internetwork addresses of the Server computer to another one of the internetwork addresses of the Server computer.
  • the Server computer behaves in the same manner as in the preferred embodiment but the ATU takes over some of the functions undertaken by the Client computer in the preferred embodiment.
  • knowledge of particular subsets of internetwork addresses that are owned by the home network is propagated through routers on other networks and priority traffic is addressed to the said particular subsets of internetwork addresses.
  • one or more routers one the network that is not the home network is equipped with a trunk circuit that connects to a router or Server computer on the home network.

Abstract

Plusieurs ordinateurs clients d'un interréseau demandent à se raccorder au même ordinateur serveur commun. Chaque ordinateur serveur possède dans l'interréseau plus d'une adresse lui étant associée. L'ordinateur serveur devant être utilisé est choisi, ce choix comportant une ou plusieurs adresses d'ordinateurs serveurs disponibles dans l'interréseau. Le choix de l'adresse de l'ordinateur serveur devant être utilisée par chacun des ordinateurs clients est effectué séparément pour chacun d'eux. Ce choix dépend notamment de la priorité du trafic devant être acheminé et de la topologie de l'interréseau entre l'ordinateur client et l'ordinateur serveur. Un compromis donnant des performances encore meilleures que par d'autres moyens s'obtient lorsque l'ordinateur serveur n'a qu'une seule adresse dans l'interréseau et lorsqu'on demande à tous les ordinateurs clients d'utiliser la même adresse d'ordinateur serveur de l'interréseau sans avoir à prendre en considération la priorité du trafic.
PCT/US1997/023955 1997-01-06 1997-12-31 Ordinateurs d'un reseau repartis en plusieurs sites WO1998031125A1 (fr)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
AU58078/98A AU5807898A (en) 1997-01-06 1997-12-31 Multi-homed network computers

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US3453497P 1997-01-06 1997-01-06
US60/034,534 1997-01-06

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO1998031125A1 true WO1998031125A1 (fr) 1998-07-16

Family

ID=21877014

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US1997/023955 WO1998031125A1 (fr) 1997-01-06 1997-12-31 Ordinateurs d'un reseau repartis en plusieurs sites

Country Status (2)

Country Link
AU (1) AU5807898A (fr)
WO (1) WO1998031125A1 (fr)

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7006616B1 (en) 1999-05-21 2006-02-28 Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Teleconferencing bridge with EdgePoint mixing
US7277954B1 (en) * 2002-04-29 2007-10-02 Cisco Technology, Inc. Technique for determining multi-path latency in multi-homed transport protocol
EP2321735B1 (fr) * 2008-08-01 2019-10-02 Callahan Cellular L.L.C. Stockage de transfert de données à hébergement multiple

Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5347633A (en) * 1991-04-30 1994-09-13 International Business Machines, Inc. System for selectively intercepting and rerouting data network traffic
US5426427A (en) * 1991-04-04 1995-06-20 Compuserve Incorporated Data transmission routing system

Patent Citations (2)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5426427A (en) * 1991-04-04 1995-06-20 Compuserve Incorporated Data transmission routing system
US5347633A (en) * 1991-04-30 1994-09-13 International Business Machines, Inc. System for selectively intercepting and rerouting data network traffic

Cited By (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7006616B1 (en) 1999-05-21 2006-02-28 Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Teleconferencing bridge with EdgePoint mixing
US7277954B1 (en) * 2002-04-29 2007-10-02 Cisco Technology, Inc. Technique for determining multi-path latency in multi-homed transport protocol
US7761562B1 (en) 2002-04-29 2010-07-20 Cisco Technology, Inc. Technique for determining multi-path latency in multi-homed transport protocol
EP2321735B1 (fr) * 2008-08-01 2019-10-02 Callahan Cellular L.L.C. Stockage de transfert de données à hébergement multiple

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
AU5807898A (en) 1998-08-03

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US6243379B1 (en) Connection and packet level multiplexing between network links
JP4977689B2 (ja) ローカル・ネットワークとリモート・ネットワークとの間のマルチリンク・アクセスを確立する方法および対応するアプライアンス
US8458303B2 (en) Utilizing a gateway for the assignment of internet protocol addresses to client devices in a shared subset
JP3666654B2 (ja) インターネット通信方法｛ＡｍｅｔｈｏｄｆｏｒａｎＩｎｔｅｒｎｅｔＣｏｍｍｕｎｉｃａｔｉｏｎ｝
CN1157902C (zh) 非广播多路访问网络的ip地址映射发送方法
KR100231705B1 (ko) 하이브리드 게이트웨이 구조 및 그 운용 방법
WO1998031125A1 (fr) Ordinateurs d'un reseau repartis en plusieurs sites
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview
Cisco Bridging and IBM Networking Overview

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
AK Designated states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AL AM AT AU AZ BA BB BG BR BY CA CH CN CU CZ DE DK EE ES FI GB GE GH GM GW HU ID IL IS JP KE KG KP KR KZ LC LK LR LS LT LU LV MD MG MK MN MW MX NO NZ PL PT RO RU SD SE SG SI SK SL TJ TM TR TT UA UG UZ VN YU ZW AM AZ BY KG KZ MD RU TJ TM

AL Designated countries for regional patents

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): GH GM KE LS MW SD SZ UG ZW AT BE CH DE DK ES FI FR GB GR IE IT

DFPE Request for preliminary examination filed prior to expiration of 19th month from priority date (pct application filed before 20040101)
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application
REG Reference to national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: 8642

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: JP

Ref document number: 1998530930

Format of ref document f/p: F

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase