Intra-Domain Routing Protection Scheme Based on the Minimum Cross-Degree Between the Shortest Path and Backup Path
Source abstract
Abstract
With the continuous development of the Internet, people have put forward higher requirements for the stability and availability of the network. Although we constantly strive to take measures to avoid network failures, it is undeniable that network failures are unavoidable. Therefore, in this situation, enhancing the stability and reliability of the network to cope with possible network failures has become particularly crucial. Therefore, researching and developing high fault protection rate intra-domain routing protection schemes has become an important topic and is the subject of this study. This study aims to enhance the resilience and service continuity of networks in the event of failures by proposing innovative routing protection strategies. The existing methods, such as Loop Free Alternative (LFA) and Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMP), have some shortcomings in terms of fast fault detection, fault response, and fault recovery processes, such as long fault recovery time, limitations of routing protection strategies, and requirements for network topology. In response to these issues, this article proposes a new routing protection scheme, which is an intra-domain routing protection scheme based on the minimum cross-degree backup path. The core idea of this plan is to find the backup path with the minimum degree of intersection with the optimal path, in order to avoid potential fault areas and minimize the impact of faults on other parts of the network. Through comparative analysis and performance evaluation, this scheme can provide a higher fault protection rate and more reliable routing protection in the network. Especially in complex networks, this scheme has more performance and protection advantages than traditional routing protection methods. The proposed scheme in this paper exhibits a high rate of fault protection across multiple topologies, demonstrating a fault protection rate of 1 in the context of real topology. It performs commendably in terms of path stretch, evidenced by a figure of 1.06 in the case of real topology Ans, suggesting robust path length control capabilities. The mean intersection value is 0 in the majority of the topologies, implying virtually no common edge between the backup and optimal paths. This effectively mitigates the risk of single-point failure.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Software-Defined Networks and 5G · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting · Network Security and Intrusion Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Automation and Software Engineering, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030031, China
China Astronautics Standards Institute, Beijing 100071, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) · Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks10.1038/35019019 ↗
2. Turner, D., Levchenko, K., Snoeren, A.C., and Savage, S. (September, January 30). California fault lines: Understanding the causes and impact of network failures. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2010 Conference, New Delhi, India.10.1145/1851182.1851220 ↗
3. Impact analysis of faults and attacks in large-scale networks10.1109/MSECP.2003.1236235 ↗
4. An efficient calculation for TI-LFA rerouting path10.1587/transcom.2021CEP0003 ↗
5. Automata-theoretic approach to verification of MPLS networks under link failures
6. A node-regulated deflection routing framework for contention minimization
7. Metro: An efficient traffic fast rerouting scheme with low overhead10.1109/TNET.2019.2935382 ↗
8. Routing optimization for IP networks with loop-free alternates10.1016/j.comnet.2015.11.009 ↗
9. Optimizing IGP link costs for improving IP-level resilience with Loop-Free Alternates10.1016/j.comcom.2012.09.004 ↗
10. Rétvári, G., Tapolcai, J., Enyedi, G., and Császár, A. (2011, January 10–15). IP fast reroute: Loop free alternates revisited. Proceedings of the 2011 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, Shanghai, China.10.1109/INFCOM.2011.5935135 ↗
11. On the feasibility and efficacy of protection routing in IP networks10.1109/TNET.2011.2123916 ↗
12. Moy, J. (2022, September 06). RFC2328: OSPF Version 2. RFC Editor. Available online: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2328.
13. Oran, D. (2022, August 12). RFC1142: Osi Is-Is Intra-Domain Routing Protocol. The Internet Engineering Task Force, Available online: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1142.
14. A hybrid link protection scheme for ensuring network service availability in link-state routing networks10.1109/JCN.2019.000056 ↗
15. Connectivity preserving graph sequences for routing arborescence construction10.1109/JSAC.2025.3528812 ↗
16. A survey of fast-recovery mechanisms in packet-switched networks10.1109/COMST.2021.3063980 ↗
17. Path selection for link failure protection in hybrid SDNs10.1016/j.future.2022.07.016 ↗
18. Fault tolerance and failure recovery techniques in software-defined networking: A comprehensive approach10.1007/s10922-023-09772-x ↗
19. Source selectable path diversity via routing deflections10.1145/1151659.1159933 ↗
20. Ohara, Y., Imahori, S., and Meter, R.V. (2009, January 19–25). Mara: Maximum alternative routing algorithm. Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2009, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.10.1109/INFCOM.2009.5061933 ↗
21. Vo, H.Q., Lysne, O., and Kvalbein, A. (2013, January 22–24). Routing with joker links for maximized robustness. Proceedings of the 2013 IFIP Networking Conference, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
22. Schneider, K., Zhang, B., and Benmohamed, L. (2020, January 6–9). Hop-by-hop multipath routing: Choosing the right nexthop set. Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2020—IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1109/INFOCOM41043.2020.9155482 ↗
23. Loop-free alternates and not-via addresses: A proper combination for IP fast reroute?10.1016/j.comnet.2009.10.020 ↗
24. Xi, K., and Chao, H.J. (2007, January 10–14). IP fast rerouting for single-link/node failure recovery. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Broadband Communications, Networks and Systems (BROADNETS’07), Raleigh, NC, USA.
25. Multiple routing configurations for fast IP network recovery10.1109/TNET.2008.926507 ↗
26. Achieving convergence-free routing using failure-carrying packets10.1145/1282427.1282408 ↗
27. Papán, J., Segeč, P., Moravčík, M., Kontšek, M., Mikuš, Ľ., and Uramová, J. (2018, January 15–16). Overview of IP fast reroute solutions. Proceedings of the 2018 16th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Stary Smokovec, Slovakia.
28. Ashraf, T., Lee, S.S.W., Iqbal, M., and Pan, J.-Y. (2021). Routing path assignment for joint load balancing and fast failure recovery in IP network. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app112110504 ↗
29. Improved fast rerouting using postprocessing10.1109/TDSC.2020.2998019 ↗
30. Györgyi, C., Larsen, K.G., Schmid, S., and Srba, J. (2024, January 24–27). SyRep: Efficient synthesis and repair of fast re-route forwarding tables for resilient networks. Proceedings of the 2024 54th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), Brisbane, Australia.10.1109/DSN58291.2024.00053 ↗
31. Fast rerouting against multi-link failures without topology constraint10.1109/TNET.2017.2780852 ↗
32. University of Adelaide (2022, September 07). The Internet Topology Zoo. Available online: http://www.topology-zoo.org/.