Patent Abstract:
A node (bridge, switch, router) and method are described herein that implement a loop prevention mechanism for Ethernet ring protection. In one embodiment, the loop prevention mechanism can enhance the current draft of the standard ITU-T G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection Switching.

Full Description:
CLAIMING BENEFIT OF PRIOR FILED U.S. APPLICATION 
       [0001]    This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/132,714 entitled “Loop Prevention Mechanism for the ITU Standard ITU-T G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection” filed on Jun. 20, 2008 the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 
     
    
     TECHNICAL FIELD 
       [0002]    The present invention relates in general to local and metropolitan area networks and, in particular, to a node (bridge, switch, router) that implements a loop prevention mechanism for Ethernet ring protection. In one embodiment, the loop prevention mechanism can enhance the current draft of standard ITU-T G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection Switching. 
       BACKGROUND 
       [0003]    The following abbreviations are herewith defined, at least some of which are referred to within the following description of the state-of-the-art and the present invention.
   APS Automatic Protection Switching   CC Continuity Check   CFM Connectivity Fault Management   ERP Ethernet Ring Protection   ETH Ethernet   FDB Forwarding Database   IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers   ITU International Telecommunication Union   LAN Local Area Network   MAC Message Authentication Code   MAN Metropolitan Area Network   NR No Request   OAM Operation, Administration and Maintenance   RB RPL Blocked   RPL Ring Protection Link   SF Signal Failure   STP Spanning Tree Protocol   TTL Time to Live   TLV Type Length Value   VLAN Virtual Local Area Network   WTR Wait to Restore   
 
         [0025]    Computers are often connected together through a network (e.g., LAN, MAN) that is made up of nodes (bridges, switches, routers) in which it is desirable for data that is being transmitted from one bridge to be constrained to follow a loop-free path. Unfortunately, the previous draft standard of ITU-T G.8032 Ethernet Ring Protection Switching exhibited the possibility for some data loops to be created when old information circulates within the ring. The most critical problem is when old information interpretation allows the creation of a loop of data traffic that may last several minutes. This problem where a data loop can be formed if a node wrongly interprets an old message is demonstrated in an exemplary scenario discussed in detail below with respect to  FIGS. 1A-1K  (PRIOR ART). 
         [0026]    Prior to describing this exemplary scenario, a brief discussion is provided next to promote an understanding of some of the main terms and concepts associated with the ITU-T G.8032 standard (the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein) that may be relevant to the present discussion. Of course, those people who are skilled in the art will already be well aware of these main terms and concepts commonly associated with the protocol of ITU-T G.8032. 
         [0027]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard&#39;s Objectives and Principles are highlighted here:
       Use of standard 802 MAC and OAM frames around the ring.   Uses standard 802.1Q (and amended Q bridges), but with the xSTP disabled.   Ring nodes support standard FDB MAC learning, forwarding, flush behavior and port blocking/unblocking mechanisms.   Prevents loops within the ring by blocking one of the links (either a pre-determined link or a failed link).   Monitoring of the ETH layer for discovery and identification of SF conditions.   Protection and recovery switching within 50 ms for typical rings.   Total communication for the protection mechanism should consume a very small percentage of total available bandwidth.       
 
         [0035]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard&#39;s Terms and Concepts are highlighted here:
       ERP—The common name for the ITU-T G8032 draft standard.   RPL—Link designated by mechanism that is blocked during Idle state to prevent loop on bridged ring.   RPL Owner—Node connected to RPL that blocks traffic on RPL during idle state and unblocks during protected state.   Link Monitoring—Links of ring are monitored using standard ETH CC OAM messages (CFM).   SF—Signal Fail is declared when ETH trail signal fail condition is detected.   NR—No Request is declared when there are no outstanding conditions (e.g., SF, etc.) on the node.   Ring APS (R-APS) Messages—Protocol messages defined in G.8032 and ITU-T Y.1731 entitled “OAM Functions and Mechanisms for Ethernet Based Networks” (the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein).   APS Channel—Ring-wide VLAN used exclusively for transmission of OAM messages including R-APS messages.   TLV—Optional information that may be encoded as a type-length-value or a TLV element and used within data communication protocols and particularly within ITU-T Y1731 onto which the ITU-T G.8032 has based its frame format for R-APS. The type and length fields are fixed in size (typically 1-4 bytes), and the value field is of variable size. These fields are used as follows:   Type: a numeric code which indicates the kind of field that this part of the message represents.   Length: the size of the value field (typically in bytes).   Value: variable sized set of bytes which contains data for this part of the message.       
 
         [0048]    Some of the advantages of using a TLV representation are:
       TLV sequences are easily searched using generalized parsing functions.   New message elements which are received at an older node can be safely skipped and the rest of the message can be parsed.   TLV elements are typically used in a binary format which makes parsing faster and the data smaller.       
 
         [0052]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard specifies the use of different timers to avoid race conditions and unnecessary switching operations. These timers are highlighted here:
       WTR Timer—Used by RPL Owner to verify that the ring has stabilized before blocking the RPL after SF Recovery. The WTR timer may be configured by the operator in 1 minute steps between 5 and 12 minutes; the default value is 5 minutes.   Hold-off Timers—Used by underlying ETH layer to filter out intermittent link faults, where faults will only be reported to the ring protection mechanism if this timer expires.       
 
         [0055]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard&#39;s Controlling the Protection Mechanism is highlighted here:
       Protection switching triggered by:
           Detection/clearing of Signal Failure (SF) by ETH CC OAM.   Remote requests over R-APS channel (Y.1731).   Expiration of G.8032 timers.   
           R-APS requests control the communication and states of the ring nodes:
           Two basic R-APS messages specified—R-APS(SF) and R-APS(NR).   RPL Owner may modify the R-APS(NR) indicating the RPL is blocked—R-APS(NR,RB).   
           Ring nodes may be in one of two states:
           Idle—normal operation, no link/node faults detected in ring.   
           Protecting—Protection switching in effect after identifying a signal fault.       
 
         [0066]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard&#39;s link failure scenario is highlighted here:
       1. Link/node failure is detected by the nodes adjacent to the failure.   2. The nodes adjacent to the failure will block the failed link and report this failure to the ring using R-APS (SF) message.   3. R-APS (SF) message triggers:
           RPL Owner unblocks the RPL.   All nodes perform FDB flushing.   
           4. Ring is in protection state.   5. All nodes remain connected in the logical topology.       
 
         [0074]    The ITU-T G.8032 standard&#39;s link failure recovery scenario is highlighted here:
       1. When the failed link recovers, the traffic is kept blocked on the nodes adjacent to the recovered link.   2. The nodes adjacent to the recovered link transmit RAPS(NR) message indicating they have no local request present.   3. When the RPL Owner receives RAPS(NR) message it starts the WTR timer.   4. Once the WTR timer expires, RPL Owner blocks RPL and transmits a R-APS (NR, RB) message.   5. Nodes receiving the message perform a FDB Flush and unblock their previously blocked ports.   6. Ring is now returned to Idle state.       
 
         [0081]    Other useful information: the ERP uses the R-APS messages to manage and coordinate the protection switching. The R-APS messages (which are continuously repeated) and the OAM common fields are well known to those skilled in the art and are defined in ITU-T Y.1731. 
         [0082]    Referring to  FIGS. 1A-1K  (PRIOR ART), there are illustrated several diagrams of an exemplary network  100  at different steps  1 A- 1 L which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can wrongly interpret an old message which leads to the formation of an undesirable data loop. The discussion below first describes how the bridge can wrongly interpret an old message which leads to the formation of the undesirable data loop then a discussion is provided to explain the deficiencies of the current ITU-T G.8032 standard which proposes to use a guard timer in an attempt to prevent the formation of the undesirable data loop. The different steps  1 A- 1 K respectively correspond to  FIGS. 1A-1K . 
         [0083]      1 A. Assume the exemplary network  100  has a ring of six nodes that are numbered from 1 to 6 and called node  1  to node  6 , respectively. The node  1  is the RPL owner. 
         [0084]      1 B. Assume node  1  periodically sends R-APS 1  (NR,RB) messages reflecting its idle state, across the ring (as per standard). Assume node  1  is blocking a port  102  to RPL link  104  to prevent a loop (as per standard). Assume all nodes  1 - 6  are in idle states. 
         [0085]      1 C. Assume there is a failure  106  on link  108  between node  5  and node  6 . 
         [0086]      1 D. Node  5  and node  6  respectively block ports  110  and  112  on failed link  108  and send R-APS(SF) messages when they transition from the idle state to the protection state (as per standard). 
         [0087]      1 E. Assume the link  108  is up again between node  5  and node  6 . Node  5  and node  6  send R-APS(NR) messages and remain in the protection state (as per standard). 
         [0088]      1 F. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives the R-APS (SF) message sent by node  5  or node  6  during step  1 D. The RPL owner (node  1 ) unblocks the non failed RPL port  102  and goes from the idle state into the protective state. 
         [0089]      1 G. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives a R-APS(NR) message sent from node  5  or node  6  during step  1 E. The RPL owner (node  1 ) starts a WTR  114  and remains in the protective state (as per the standard). 
         [0090]      1 H. Assume that the WTR  114  expires, the RPL owner (node  1 ) blocks the RPL port  102  again and goes back to the idle state. The RPL owner (node  1 ) periodically sends R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages. 
         [0091]      1 I. Node  5  and node  6  receive the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) message from step  1 H, unblock the non failed ports  110  and  112  and transition from the protection state to the idle state (as per standard). 
         [0092]    Steps  1 H and  1 I are the expected sequence of steps but a non-expected sequence of steps  1 J and  1 K could occur after step  1 G which would lead to the undesirable creation of the data loop in the network  100 . The problematical and un-expected sequence of steps  1 J and  1 K are as follows: 
         [0093]      1 J. The WTR timer  114  is still running at RPL owner (node  1 ). 
         [0094]      1 K. Node  5  and node  6  receive the R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message from step  1 A, unblock the non-failed ports  110  and  112  and transition from the protection state to the idle state (as per standard). 
         [0095]    Steps  1 J and  1 K are possible if there is a delay in transmitting messages from node  1  to node  5  because of, for example, congestion/queueing or software processing (if trap and forward in software). In this situation, the R-APS 1  (NR,RP) message from step  1 A could still be transiting over the ring while the RPL owner (node  1 ) was already in the protective state. In this case, the RPL owner (node  1 ) would have RPL port  102  forwarding and the nodes  5  and  6  would have their ports  110  and  112  all forwarding at the same time which means there would be an undesirable loop  116  (see  FIG. 1K ). Unfortunately, this loop  116  cannot be characterized as “transient” which means its duration is very short probably less than 500 ms. Instead, the loop  116  can last for as long as the WTR timer is configured meaning 10 minutes at worse. Of course, this type of situation should prevented at all cost because TTL is not implemented at layer  2  in the network  100  which means that a layer  2  loop  116  would allow some packets to loop forever. 
         [0096]    The current solution to this problem is described in the ITU-T G.8032 draft standard. The ITU-T G.8032 attempts to solve this problem by configuring and using a guard timer to ignore certain messages that are susceptible to being too old. To clarify the goal of the guard timer, the standard states the following: 
         [0097]    “R-APS messages are continuously repeated with an interval of 5 seconds. This, combined with the R-APS messages forwarding method, in which messages are copied and forwarded at every ring node around the ring, can result in a message corresponding to an old request, which is no longer relevant, being received by ring nodes. The reception of messages with outdated information could result in erroneous interpretation of the existing requests in the ring and lead to erroneous protection switching decisions. 
         [0098]    The guard timer is used to prevent ring nodes from receiving outdated R-APS messages. During the duration of the guard timer, all received R-APS messages are ignored by the ring protection control process. This allows that old messages still circulating on the ring may be ignored. This, however, has the side effect that, during the period of the guard timer, a node will be unaware of new or existing ring requests transmitted from other nodes. 
         [0099]    The period of the guard timer may be configured by the operator in 10 ms steps between 10 ms and 2 seconds, with a default value of 500 ms. This time should be greater than the maximum expected forwarding delay for which one R-APS message circles around the ring. 
         [0100]    The guard timer may be started and stopped. While the guard timer is running the received R-APS Request/State and Status information is not forwarded. If the guard timer is not running, the R-APS Request/State information is forwarded unchanged. “see Section 10.1.5 in ITU-T G.8032 (June 2008). 
         [0101]    Also, the guard timer is started on detection of a “local clear SF” meaning that the failure condition has been detected before (link down for example) and is now not happening anymore and is therefore cleared. Thus, when this guard timer is applied to present scenario this means that the user will have to configure the guard timer by estimating how long at worse, a frame can be delayed, so that all previous R-APS(NR,RB) messages are not wrongly interpreted which if done can lead to the creation of some very long lasting loops  116 . The guard timer solution is inadequate for the following reasons (for example): 
         [0102]    1. A node may discard a valid message, and this may create other kinds of problems. For example, the discarding of an R-APS message carrying a flush (in its status field) can create a loss of connectivity between elements connected through this ring, since the node does not react to this important instruction allowing flooding and addresses to be relearned. This loss of connectivity may last 5 seconds assuming that this is the chosen interval for sending the R-APS message. 
         [0103]    2. The guard timer relies on the user setup (because the guard timer is not mandated by the ITU-T G8032 draft standard) of a timer therefore the user needs to understand this kind of complex problem. Then, even if the user configures the guard timer, it can still be too short and the problem can still arise and if it is too long some valid frames can be lost. 
         [0104]    Accordingly, there has been and still is a need to address the aforementioned shortcomings and other shortcomings associated with the creation of undesirable loops and the proposed guard timer. These needs and other needs are satisfied by the present invention. 
       SUMMARY 
       [0105]    In one aspect, the present invention provides a method implemented by a node (non RPL owner node) for preventing a creation of a loop within a ring of a network. The method includes the steps of: (a) keeping track of a failure number in the ring of the network; (b) incrementing the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; (c) updating the kept track failure number with a failure number from a message received from another node in the ring if the failure number in the received message is larger than the kept track failure number; and (d) discarding, while in a protection state, a message received from a ring protection link owner node if the failure number in the received message is less than the kept track failure number, wherein the discarding of the received message from the ring protection link owner node prevents any possible interpretation of old information within the received information which causes the creation of the loop within the ring of the network. 
         [0106]    In another aspect, the present invention provides a method implemented by a node (RPL owner node) for preventing a creation of a loop within a ring of a network. The method includes the steps of: (a) keeping track of a failure number in the ring of the network; (b) incrementing the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; and (c) updating the kept failure number with any failure number in a message received from another node that transitioned from an idle state to a protection state. 
         [0107]    In yet another aspect, the present invention provides a non-ring protection link owner node including: (a) a processor; and (b) a memory that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor interfaces with the memory and executes the processor-executable instructions to enable the following: (i) keep track of a failure number in the ring of the network; (ii) increment the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; (iii) update the kept track failure number with a failure number from a message received from another node in the ring if the failure number in the received message is larger than the kept track failure number; and (iv) discard, while in a protection state, a message received from a ring protection link owner node if the failure number in the received message is less than the kept track failure number, wherein the discarding of the received message from the ring protection link owner node prevents any possible interpretation of old information within the received message which causes the creation of the loop within the ring of the network. 
         [0108]    In still yet another aspect, the present invention provides a non-ring protection link owner node including: (a) a processor; and (b) a memory that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor interfaces with the memory and executes the processor-executable instructions to enable the following: (i) keep track of a failure number in the ring of the network; (ii) increment the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; and (iii) update the kept failure number with any failure number in a message received from another node that transitioned from an idle state to a protection state. 
         [0109]    In yet another aspect, the present invention provides a network that includes: (a) a non-ring protection link owner node that has a processor and a memory that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor interfaces with the memory and executes the processor-executable instructions to enable the following: (i) keep track of a failure number in a ring; (ii) increment the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; (iii) update the kept track failure number with a failure number from a message received from another node in the ring if the failure number in the received message is larger than the kept track failure number; and (iv) discard, while in a protection state, a message received from a ring protection link owner node if the failure number in the received message is less than the kept track failure number, wherein the discarding of the received message from the ring protection link owner node prevents any possible interpretation of old information within the received message which causes the creation of the loop within the ring of the network; and (b) the ring protection link owner node includes a processor and a memory that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor interfaces with the memory and executes the processor-executable instructions to enable the following: (i) keep track of the failure number in the ring; (ii) increment the kept track failure number when detecting a local failure; and (iii) update the kept failure number with any failure number in a message received from one of the non-ring protection link owner nodes that transitioned from an idle state to a protection state. 
         [0110]    Additional aspects of the invention will be set forth, in part, in the detailed description, figures and any claims which follow, and in part will be derived from the detailed description, or can be learned by practice of the invention. It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the invention as disclosed. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0111]    A more complete understanding of the present invention may be obtained by reference to the following detailed description when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein: 
           [0112]      FIGS. 1A-1K  (PRIOR ART) are several diagrams of an exemplary traditional network at different times which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can wrongly interpret an old message which can lead to the problematic formation of an undesirable data loop; 
           [0113]      FIGS. 2A-2L , are several diagrams of an exemplary network at different times which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can address the aforementioned loop problem when there is one link failure in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention; and 
           [0114]      FIGS. 3A-3L , are several diagrams of an exemplary network at different times which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can address the aforementioned loop problem when there are multiple link failures in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0115]    In the present invention, the failure detecting node and RPL owner are configured to keep track of new information namely the number of the latest failure in the ring. This new information can be added as a new TLV in the R-APS (SF) message, the R-APS(NR) message and the R-APS(NR,RB) message. In fact, the new information can be added as a new TLV in all messages to simplify coding and to allow for future enhancements even though these messages may or may not be used. The use of the TLV to contain this information also has an advantage of allowing the protocol to be compatible with newer extensions, since when the TLV is not supported by an older protocol version or by some other vendor&#39;s equipment it will be ignored by the older protocol or the other vendor&#39;s equipment. Here are the principles of operation of the proposed extension to the ITU-T G8032 standard:
       All nodes (RPL owner and not RPL owner) add a new TLV with a failure number to all the sent R-APS messages.   Any node shall keep track of a failure number that starts at 0 at node startup in software.   Any node detecting a local failure shall increment its own current failure number.   Any non RPL owner node in the protection state shall ignore any R-APS(NR,RB) message if the failure number in the message is strictly inferior than its own. This is to make sure to avoid interpreting old information and causing an undesirable loop (see  FIGS. 1J and 1K ).   Any non RPL owner node shall update its own failure number with the failure number from any received R-APS message if the failure number in the newly received R-APS message is strictly superior than its own. This is to make sure to have each node using the same biggest possible failure number.   The RPL owner node shall update its own failure number with any failure number in a received R-APS(SF) message, if the failure number in the received R-APS(SF) message is strictly superior than its own.       
 
         [0122]    Referring to  FIGS. 2A-2L , there are illustrated several diagrams of an exemplary network  200  at different steps  2 A- 2 L which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can address the aforementioned loop problem when there is a single link failure in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The different steps  2 A- 2 L respectively correspond to  FIGS. 2A-2L . 
         [0123]      2 A. Assume the exemplary network  200  has a ring of six enhanced nodes that are numbered from 1 to 6 and called node  1  to node  6 , respectively. The node  1  is the RPL owner. The enhanced nodes  1 - 6  each have their own processor  202  and a memory  204  that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor  202  interfaces with the memory  204  and executes the processor-executable instructions to implement as needed the aforementioned six principles of operation  206  for extending the protocol of the ITU-T G.8032 standard in accordance with the present invention. 
         [0124]      2 B. Assume node  1  periodically sends R-APS 1  (NR,RB) messages reflecting its idle state, across the ring (as per standard), plus a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “0” since no failure has been seen yet. Assume node  1  is blocking a port  208  to RPL link  210  to prevent a loop (as per standard). Assume all of the nodes  1 - 6  are in idle states. 
         [0125]      2 C. Assume there is a failure  212  on link  214  between node  5  and node  6 . 
         [0126]      2 D. Node  5  and node  6  respectively block ports  216  and  218  on failed link  214  and send R-APS(SF) messages when they transition from the idle state to the protection state (as per standard). In addition, the R-APS(SF) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. The nodes  5  and  6  also increment their own failure number to “1”. 
         [0127]      2 E. Assume the link  214  is up again between node  5  and node  6 . Node  5  and node  6  send R-APS(NR) messages and remain in the protection state (as per standard). In addition, the R-APS(NR) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. 
         [0128]      2 F. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives the R-APS (SF) message with the TLV carrying the failure number “1” that was sent by node  5  or node  6  during step  2 D. The RPL owner (node  1 ) unblocks the non failed RPL port  208  and goes from the idle state into the protective state. The RPL owner (node  1 ) also sets its own failure number to “1”. 
         [0129]      2 G. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives R-APS(NR) from node  5  or node  6  during step  2 E. The RPL owner (node  1 ) starts a WTR  220  and remains in the protective state (as per the standard). 
         [0130]      2 H. The WTR timer  220  is still running at the RPL owner (node  1 ). 
         [0131]      2 I. Node  5  and node  6  both receive the R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message from step  2 A. The R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message is discarded and a loop is avoided because the message has a failure number “0” while the current node failure number is “1” (no need of using a guard timer) (compare to  FIGS. 1J and 1K ). 
         [0132]    Steps  2 H and  2 I are the un-expected sequence of steps due to the delay in node  5  and node  6  receiving the R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message from step  2 A. As can be seen, there is no creation of an undesirable loop nor was there a need to use a guard timer. The following discussion describes the expected sequence of steps  2 J- 2 L that should occur after step  2 G. The steps  2 J- 2 L are as follows: 
         [0133]      2 J. Assume that the WTR  220  expires, the RPL owner (node  1 ) blocks the RPL port  208  again and goes back to the idle state. The RPL owner (node  1 ) periodically sends R-APS 2 (NR,RB) across the ring reflecting its idle state (as per standard), plus the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) has a new TLV carrying the failure number set to “1” since this failure has been seen. 
         [0134]      2 K. Node  5  and node  6  receive the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages from step  2 J. Node  5  and node  6  do not ignore the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages because they have the TLVs with the failure number of “1” and the current node failure number is “1” (no need of using a guard timer). Thus, node  5  and node  6  unblock the non failed ports  216  and  218  and transition from the protection state to the idle state. 
         [0135]      2 L. All nodes  1 - 6  in the “idle” state update their current failure number to “1” which is the same as in the TLV of the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages. 
         [0136]    The principles of operation  206  for the proposed extension to the ITU-T G8032 standard in accordance with the present invention also work in case multiple failures occur in the ring of the network  200 . Referring to  FIGS. 3A-3L , there are illustrated several diagrams of an exemplary network  300  at different steps  3 A- 3 L which are used to help describe how a node (e.g., bridge, switch, router) can address the aforementioned loop problem when there are multiple link failures in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The different steps  3 A- 3 L respectively correspond to  FIGS. 3A-3L . 
         [0137]      3 A. Assume the exemplary network  300  has a ring of six enhanced nodes that are numbered from 1 to 6 and called node  1  to node  6 , respectively. The node  1  is the RPL owner. The enhanced nodes  1 - 6  each have their own processor  302  and a memory  304  that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor  302  interfaces with the memory  304  and executes the processor-executable instructions to implement as needed the aforementioned six principles of operation  306  for extending the protocol of the ITU-T G.8032 standard in accordance with the present invention. 
         [0138]      3 B. Assume node  1  periodically sends R-APS 1  (NR,RB) messages reflecting its idle state, across the ring (as per standard), plus a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “0” since no failure has been seen yet. Assume node  1  is blocking a port  308  to RPL link  310  to prevent a loop (as per standard). Assume all of the nodes  1 - 6  are in idle states. 
         [0139]      3 C. Assume there is a failure  312  on link  314  between node  2  and node  3  and a failure  316  on link  318  between node  5  and node  6 . 
         [0140]      3 D. Node  2  and node  3  respectively block ports  320  and  322  on failed link  314  and send R-APS(SF) messages when they transition from the idle state to the protection state (as per standard). In addition, the R-APS(SF) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. Likewise, node  5  and node  6  respectively block ports  324  and  326  on failed link  318  and send R-APS(SF) messages when they transition from the idle state to the protection state (as per standard). In addition, these R-APS(SF) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. The nodes  2 ,  3 ,  5  and  6  also increment their own failure number to 1. 
         [0141]      3 E. Assume the link  314  is up again between node  2  and node  3 . Node  2  and node  3  send R-APS(NR) messages and remain in the protection state (as per standard). In addition, these R-APS(NR) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. Likewise, assume the link  318  is up again between node  5  and node  6 . Node  5  and node  6  send R-APS(NR) messages and remain in the protection state (as per standard). In addition, these R-APS(NR) messages have a new TLV carrying the failure number, set to “1” since a failure has been detected. From this state, nodes  2 ,  3 ,  5  and  6  receiving a R-ASP(NR,RB) will perform the following action (among other not related to present discussion) to “unblock both ports” (as per standard). 
         [0142]      3 F. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives the R-APS (SF) message with the TLV carrying the failure number “1” that was sent by node  5  or node  6  during step  3 D. The RPL owner (node  1 ) unblocks the non failed RPL port  308  and goes from the idle state into the protective state. The RPL owner (node  1 ) also sets its own failure number to 1. The RPL owner (node  1 ) would perform the same action if it received the R-APS (SF) message with the TLV carrying the failure number “1” that was sent by node  2  or node  3  during step  3 D. 
         [0143]      3 G. Assume the RPL owner (node  1 ) receives R-APS(NR) from node  5  or node  6  during step  3 E. The RPL owner (node  1 ) starts a WTR  328  and remains in the protective state (as per the standard). The RPL owner (node  1 ) would perform the same action if it received the R-APS (NR) message with the TLV carrying the failure number “1” that was sent by node  2  or node  3  during step  3 E. 
         [0144]      3 H. The WTR timer  328  is still running at the RPL owner (node  1 ). 
         [0145]      3 I. Node  5  and node  6  both receive the R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message from step A. The R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message is discarded and a loop is avoided because the message has a failure number “0” while the current node failure number is “1” (no need of using a guard timer) (compare to  FIGS. 1J and 1K ). Node  2  and node  3  would perform in the same manner. 
         [0146]    Steps  3 H and  3 I are the un-expected sequence of steps due to the delay in node  5  and node  6  (or node  2  and  3 ) receiving the R-APS 1 (NR,RB) message from step  3 A. As can be seen, there is no creation of an undesirable loop nor was there a need to use a guard timer. The following discussion describes the expected sequence of steps  3 J- 3 L that should occur after step  3 G. The steps  3 J- 3 L are as follows: 
         [0147]      3 J. Assume that the WTR  220  expires, the RPL owner (node  1 ) blocks the RPL port  308  again and goes back to the idle state. The RPL owner (node  1 ) periodically sends R-APS 2 (NR,RB) across the ring reflecting its idle state (as per standard), plus the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) has a new TLV carrying the failure number set to “1” since this failure has been seen. 
         [0148]      3 K. Node  5  and node  6  receive the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages from step  3 J. Node  5  and node  6  do not ignore the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages because they have the TLVs with the failure number of “1” and the current node failure number is “1” (no need of using a guard timer). Thus, node  5  and node  6  unblock the non failed ports  324  and  326  and transition from the protection state to the idle state. Node  2  and node  3  perform in the same manner and unblock the non failed ports  320  and  322  and transition from the protection state to the idle state. 
         [0149]      3 L. All nodes  1 - 6  in the “idle” state update their current failure number to “1” which is the same as in the TLV of the R-APS 2 (NR,RB) messages. 
         [0150]    How to loop from the maximum failure number to 0 again gracefully while still allowing the enhancement to the protocol to work has not yet been specified. One possible solution could involve having the RPL node (node  1 ) resetting the failure number on all nodes through a specific new TLV just before reaching this maximum failure number. As can be seen, the present invention is relatively simple to implement, transparent to the user, and will always avoid the creation of the undesirable loop. 
         [0151]    Although multiple embodiments of the present invention have been illustrated in the accompanying Drawings and described in the foregoing Detailed Description, it should be understood that the present invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments, but is capable of numerous rearrangements, modifications and substitutions without departing from the invention as set forth and defined by the following claims.

Technology Classification (CPC): 7