FILE HISTORY
`US 6,775,235
`
`6,775,235
`PATENT:
`INVENTORS: Datta, Sanchaita
`Bhaskar, Ragula
`
`TITLE:
`
`Tools and techniques for directing packets
`over disparate networks
`
`APPLICATION
`NO:
`FILED:
`ISSUED:
`
`US2003361837A
`
`07 FEB 2003
`10 AUG 2004
`
`COMPILED:
`
`15 MAY 2015
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`BEST COPY
`
`AUG 1 0 2001
`
`U.S. UTILITY Patent Application
`
`f
`
`6775235
`
`PPL;.l f.
`10361: 7
`fifY
`,i ^r
`
`I *ae7S
`
`NG DATE CLASS
`370
`02/07/2003
`
`'IJCLASS GAU
`T
`2663
`
`XAfilNER
`
`Datta Sanchaita; Bhaska, Ragu!n;
`
`ROa
`
`9iii"1
`
`^F
`
`j
`
`1
`7
`
`II~
`
`ii
`
`I
`
`-
`
`I
`
`' TTORNEY DOCKET NO
`
`PG-PL. 3 DO NOT PUiLISFi
`Foreign priority claimed
`p yes
`no
`35 USC 119 conditions met
`n yes f' no
`/
`3003.2.11A
`Verified and Acknowledged Examliner's intials
`TITLE : Tools and techniques for directing packets over disparate networks
`U..DPT. OF COMM./PAT.& T(.!-PTO( 43CL(Rv. 12-94)
`
`:i
`i::
`i. . ..
`i
`
`2
`
`- r': K:
`
`iii
`
`ip r
`
`7 .
`
`''C1 ONTIN'tNG DATA VERIELD:
`This appllcation is aCIP of 10/034,197 12/28/20t1
`which claims bansfit of 60/259,269 12/29/2000
`This application 10/361,837
`claims benefit of 60/355,509 02/08/2002
`
`* FOREIGN APPLiCATIONS VERIFIED:
`
`
`
`-,
`
`
`
`.,F.
`
`" -
`
`,-
`
`.,- I ,
`-'
`
`RESCIND
`
`i.
`
`
`
`ml ill
`
`orPru~jno~i (~~Y1CS)~t_,
`
`2/'.1
`
`NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE MAILED
`
`i'
`
`ISSUE FEE
`Amount Due
`Date Paid
`Il /
`
`.
`
`nt Examiner
`
`MELVIN MARCELO
`PRIMARY EXAMINER
`Primary Examiner
`
`CLAIMS ALLOWED
`int Claim or
`Total Claims
`pl
`.
`
`Shets Drwg.
`/
`
`DRAWING
`Flgs.Drwg. I Print Fig.
`I
`
`FOR ISSUE
`Examiner
`in may be restricted.
`WARNING: The information disclo
`Unauthorized disclosure may be prohibited by the United States Code Title 35,
`
`STERMINAL .PREPARED
`S E FEE. Sections 122, 181. and 368, Possession outside the U.S. Patent & Trademark
`Office is restricted to authorized employees and contractors only.
`O DISK (CRF)
`CD-ROM
`FILED WITH:
`(Attaded In pocket on rpht InMe tlap)
`
`.
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`6,775,235
`
`TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR DIRECTING PACKETS OVER
`DISPARATE NETWORKS
`
`Transaction History
`
`Transaction Description
`Date
`02-07-2003 Workflow - Drawings Finished
`02-07-2003 Workflow - Drawings Matched with File at Contractor
`Initial Exam Team nn
`02-07-2003
`IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
`02-26-2003
`Notice Mailed--Application Incomplete--Filing Date Assigned
`04-02-2003
`Payment of additional filing fee/Preexam
`04-15-2003
`Application Is Now Complete
`05-01-2003
`Application Dispatched from OIPE
`05-02-2003
`Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
`09-26-2003
`Petition Entered
`12-10-2003
`01-26-2004 Mail-Record Petition Decision of Granted to Make Special
`Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
`01-28-2004
`Non-Final Rejection
`02-23-2004
`02-25-2004 Mail Non-Final Rejection
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
`04-05-2004
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
`04-05-2004
`Response after Non-Final Action
`05-18-2004
`05-18-2004 Workflow incoming amendment IFW
`Date Forwarded to Examiner
`05-21-2004
`Mail Notice of Allowance
`05-26-2004
`Notice of Allowance Data Verification Completed
`05-26-2004
`06-01-2004 Workflow - File Sent to Contractor
`Receipt into Pubs
`06-01-2004
`Receipt into Pubs
`06-02-2004
`Issue Fee Payment Verified
`06-14-2004
`Issue Fee Payment Received
`06-14-2004
`Receipt into Pubs
`06-29-2004
`Correspondence Address Change
`07-09-2004
`Change in Power of Attorney (May Include Associate POA)
`07-09-2004
`Dispatch to FDC
`07-12-2004
`Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
`07-12-2004
`Receipt into Pubs
`07-14-2004
`Issue Notification Mailed
`07-22-2004
`Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
`08-10-2004
`Patent Issue Date Used in PTA Calculation
`08-10-2004
`Correspondence Address Change
`11-09-2005
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`1036 1837
`---
`----
`
`-
`
`-
`
`--
`
`7
`
`INITIALS
`
`CONTENTS
`Dote
`(mI. C. o f ).
`or
`
`Date
`(ind. C. of M.)
`or
`
`1 AppiofUon
`
`Rw31
`
`22
`
`ti'
`
`E
`
`a7'Y.
`
`Ma
`
`" .
`
`"
`
`35.
`
`~ P\~JC...4'
`
`-41.
`
`1It?14 p /i"4
`
`Qelc lG
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`________________
`
`_______
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`42
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`16, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _
`
`48.
`
`17.._
`
`_ _
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_ _
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`47.
`
`16,
`
`___ ____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ 48.
`
`20.__
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
`
`_ _ _ _ _
`
`0.
`
`51.
`
`21"
`
`22.
`
`28.
`
`24.
`
`__
`
`__
`
`__
`
`__
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`__
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_ _
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`26.
`
`__
`
`_
`
`__8.__
`
`27._
`
`__ _ _ _
`
`_ _ _
`
`2L. __
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`n9
`
`_
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`30.
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`__
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_
`
`_ __ _ S
`
`5&__
`
`54..
`
`57.
`
`5
`
`6.
`
`6.
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`ISSUE SLIP 'STAPLE AREA (for additional rusoee)
`
`ORIGINAL
`SUBCLASS
`
`C,,LASS
`
`CROSS_ REFERENCE_______________
`
`CLASS
`
`SUBCLASS (ONE SUBCLASS PER BLOCK~
`
`INTERNATIONAL
`CLASSIFICATION
`
`_________
`
`I
`
`_______
`
`______
`
`Ref Acted -
`,r.........
`.......... Mowed
`+
`Data
`
`-
`
`--
`
`r~lnim
`
`-
`
`Date
`
`A Continued on Issue Slip Inside File Jacket
`INDEX O1F CLAIMS
`40Acted A........... Appeal
`N...........
`(Through numenu).. Canceled
`Oblcted
`I........... Inteeenc
`0 ..........
`........................ Resticted
`I
`ClaimI
`Date
`Lola1im
`
`-
`
`j
`
`-
`
`14--
`
`105---------
`
`106
`
`137
`108---------
`'10---------
`
`62............
`
`54,
`
`77
`
`6
`so
`
`70
`
`71
`82
`73
`874
`85
`
`88
`89
`
`82
`83
`84
`85
`
`871
`8
`
`100
`
`V
`
`L0 1
`
`~14
`
`~20
`
`(24
`
`V
`
`V
`
`3 ~
`A,3
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`36i2'
`
`37
`
`38
`
`.
`
`-
`
`fmroh
`
`in 150 claims or 9 actions staple additional shieet flero
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`~
`
`SEARCH
`
`Class Sub. Date f Exmr.
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`(List databases searched. Attach
`search strategy inside.)
`f Date
`
`Exmr.
`
`lfEle rlyV
`
`va- 1o-Acry
`
`K-WI )I ZOv4
`
`;230
`.235
`-) S
`.......,-~
`
`oa)c
`
`-
`
`7'
`
`I?
`
`INTERFERENCE EARCHED
`Class Sub.
`Exmr.
`,ate
`
`2'
`
`/F62oy
`
`7~
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`11111lll
`
`111111llllllllll 111111lll
`llllllllll
`
`USOO6775235B2
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Datta et al.
`
`(lo) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`(54) TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR
`DIRECTING PACKETS OVER DISPARATE
`NETWORKS
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors. Sanchaita Datta, Salt Lake City, UT
`(US), Ragula Bhaskar, Sall Lake City,
`UT (US)
`
`(73) Assignee: Ragula Systems, Salt Lake City, UT
`(US)
`
`( * ) Notice
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`US C 154(b) by 0 days
`
`Appi. No 10/361,837
`
`Filed:
`
`Feb. 7, 2003
`Prior Publication Data
`
`US 20/0147408 AI Aug. 7. 2003
`
`5 948,069 A
`9/199
`Klat et at ..........
`7091240
`6.016,307 A * /2000 Kaplan et al
`370/238
`6.119,170 A * 92X0 Schoffelnmn etal .. 709/244
`6,128,298 A * 10/2l00 Wootlon et a.
`. 370/392
`6/2001 Baskar eal.... 709/237
`6,253 247 BI
`9/2001 Datla e at a.......... 370/218
`6,295 276 BI
`6.339,595 BI
`
`12002 Rekhter el l........... 370/392
`6,438.1fX BI
`8/2002 HIalpern el al ..
`370/28
`ain e al ....
`6.449259 Bt
`9/2002
`370/253
`6 456,594 BtI /2002 Kaplan et al.
`370/238
`6,493 341 BI
`12/202 Dals etal .....
`370/392
`... ...
`6.493.349 Blt 12/2002 Casey .
`370/409
`6,665,702 Bt * 12/2003 Zisapel et al
`718/105
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`'Radware announces LmkProof The first IP Load Balancing
`Solution for networks wilh multiple ISP connection', Press
`Release, published Oct 7, 1999.*
`'Radware Balances the Network, Internet Traffic Manage-
`ment Center, published Jan. 1, 2001 *
`'Global Product Spotlight Radware Linkproof', Network-
`Magazine com, published Dec, 1, 1999.*
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`
`(list continued on next page.)
`
`(63) Coatinuaton inpart ofapphcaton No 101034197, filed on
`Dec 28, 2001.
`(60) Provisonal application No 60/355.509, filed on Feb 8.
`2002, and provisional appicallon No 60259269, filed on
`Dec. 29, 2000.
`
`(51) Int. CL' ................................. H04L 12/64
`370/238, 370/252, 370/352
`(52) U.S. CI.
`..........
`(58) Field of Search ..
`...
`370/252, 352,
`370/230, 235, 238
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`
`U S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`5,398,012 A
`5.420,862 A
`5,473599 A
`5,737,526 A
`5,898,673 A
`
`Derby el al
`.
`.
`.....
`Perlmal
`.....
`Li et at.
`Penasamy ct a
`Riggan et al.
`
`...
`
`340/825 03
`370/85 13
`370/16
`395120006
`.. 370/237
`
`Primary Eraminer-Melvmn Marcelo
`(74) Attorney, Agent, or Frmn--horpe North & Western
`I. .P
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`Methods, configured storage media, and systems are pro-
`vided for communications using two or more disparate
`networks in parallel to provide load balancing across net-
`work connections, greater rehliability, and/or increased secu-
`nly A controller provides access to two or more disparate
`networks in parallel, through direct or indirect network
`interfaces When one attached network fails, the failure is
`sensed by the controller and traffic is routed through one or
`more other disparate networks When all attached disparate
`networks are operating, one controller preferably balances
`the load between them
`
`24 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets
`
`T i0
`
`LINE4
`
`r LINE3
`ROUTER ROUTER
`g
`104
`
`SINTERNE
`S LINE i - LINE2
`ROUTER ROUTER
`
`144
`f 104
`
`0U
`
`2O
`
`VPN
`604
`
`VPN
`604
`
`VPN
`
`aw
`
`
`V
`
`SITEA
`
`CONTROLLER
`
`SIT
`
`E B CONTROLLER
`
`STE
`
`NLINES
`ROUTER
`105
`
`win-
`wOZ
`
`|
`
`LINE6
`
`LINE 7
`
`ROUTER
`105
`
`OUTE
`
`_
`
`I
`
`FRAME RELAY POINT-TO-POINT NETWORK
`
`_
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`Page 2
`
`OTIIER PUBIICAI1ONS
`
`"Radware Seeks Solutions to Easy Access Problems',South
`China Morning Post, published Dec. 7, 1999
`B Gleeson et al,"A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private
`Networks," RFC 2764 (Feb. 2000).
`U S patent applicalton,Attorney Docket No 3003 2.9A, see
`USPTO published application No US 2(02-0087724-A1,
`Jul 4, 2002
`T Liao et al, "Using multiple links to minterconnect LANs
`and publc circuit switched data networks," Proc In Con-
`ference on Connunicatio,,
`Sstsem Towards Global Inte-
`gratton, vol. 1, Singapore, 59 Nov 1990, pp 289-293.
`Press release from wwwcoyotpointcom, Sep. 8, 1997
`Network Address Translation Technical Discussion, from
`safety net; no later than May 7, 1999
`Iligginson et al, "Development of Router Clusters to Pro-
`from www asia-paci-
`vide Fast l ailover in IP Networks,'
`lic.digita com, no later than Sep 29, 1998
`
`Pages from www.navpoint.com, no later than Dec. 24, 2001.
`"tie Basic Guide to Frame Relay Networking , pp 1-85,
`copyright date 1998
`"NNI & UNI", pp. 1-2, Nov 16, 2001
`"Disaster Recovery for Frame Relay Networks", pp 1-14,
`no later than Dec 7, 2(101.
`T. Noile, "Watching Your Back", pp 1-3, Nov 1, 1999.
`"Multi-Attached and Multi-Homed Dedicated Access", pp.
`1-5, no later than Dec 8, 2001
`Felbel, "Intemetwork Link," Novel ls® Complete Encyclo-
`pedia of Networking, copyright date 1995.
`Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (3' Ed.), pp. 396-406,
`copyright date 1996.
`Wexler, "Frame Relay and IP VPNs Compete Or Coexist' " ,
`from wwwbcrcom, Jul. 1999.
`
`* cited by examiner
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 1 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`Fig. 1
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`Fig. 2
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 2 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`SITE 1
`102
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`Fig. 3
`
`ROUTER 1
`105
`
`FRAME RELAY
`NETWORK A 106
`
`NETWORK-TO-NETWORK
`INTERFACE 402
`
`FRAME RELAY
`NETWORK B 106
`
`ROUTER 2
`105
`
`-
`
`SITE 2
`102
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`Fig. 4
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 3 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`(PRIOR ART)
`Fig. 5
`
`SITE
`102
`
`MULTIPLE DISPARATE NETWORK ACCESS
`CONTROLLER 602
`
`SITE INTERFACE 702
`PACKET PATH SELECTOR (E.G., LOAD
`BALANCING, REDUNDANCY, SECURITY) 704
`INTERFACE
`INTERFACE
`INTERFACE
`706
`706
`706
`
`TO A
`NETWORK
`BY PATH
`Al
`
`TO A
`NETWORK
`BY PATH
`A2
`
`TO A
`NETWORK
`BY PATH
`A3
`
`Fig. 7
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 4 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`Fig. 6
`
`Fig. 10
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 5 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`SPECIFY PATH SELECTOR CRITERIA 800
`
`l -
`
`SEND PACKET(S) TO CONTROLLER 802
`
`DETECT NETWORK FAILURE 804
`
`ROUTE AROUND FAILURE 806
`
`Fig. 8
`
`OBTAIN ADDRESS
`RANGE
`INFORMATION 900
`
`OBTAIN SYSTEM
`TOPOLOGY
`INFORMATION 902
`
`RECEIVE PACKET FROM LOCAL SITE 904
`
`LOOK FOR ADDRESS TO "KNOWN" DESTINATION 906
`
`SELECT PATH TO A DISPARATE NETWORK 908
`USE LOAD BALANCING CRITERION 910
`USE CONNECTIVITY CRITERION 912
`USE SECURITY CRITERION 914
`
`MODIFY PACKET DESTINATION ADDRESS 916
`
`FORWARD PACKET ON SELECTED PATH 918
`
`Fig. 9
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Aug. 10, 2004
`
`Sheet 6 of 6
`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR
`DIRECTING PACKETS OVER DISPARATE
`NETWORKS
`
`RLLAIED APPICAFIONS
`
`This application claims priority to commonly owned
`copending US provisional patent application serial No.
`60/355,509 filed fIeb 8, 2002, which is also incorporated
`herein by reference. This application is a continuation-mn-
`part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/034,197 filed
`Dec. 28, 2001, which claims priority to U.S provisional
`patent application serial No 60/259,269 bled Dec 29, 2000,
`each of which is also incorporated herein by reference
`
`FIELD OF THiE INVENTION
`fhe present invention relates to computer network data
`transmission, and more particularly relates to tools and
`techniques for communications using disparate parallel
`networks, such as a virtual pnvate network ("VPN") or the
`Internet in parallel with a point-to-point, leased line, or
`frame relay network, m order to help provide benefits such
`as load balancing across network connections, greater
`reliability, and increased security
`
`TECIINICAL BACKGROUND OF FIfE
`INVENTION
`Organizations have used frame relay networks and point-
`to-point leased line networks for interconnecting geographi-
`cally dispersed offices or locations These networks have
`been implemented in the past and are currently in use for
`minterollice communication, data exchange and file sharing.
`Such networks have advantages, some of which are noted
`below But these networks also tend to be expensive, and
`there are relatively few options for relability and redun-
`dancy As networked data communication becomes critical
`to
`the day-to-day operation and functioning of an
`organization, the need for lower cost alternatives for redun-
`dant back-up for wide area networks becomes important
`Frame relay networking technology offers relatively high
`throughput and reliability Data is sent in variable length
`frames, which are a type of packet Each frame has an
`address that the frame relay network uses to determine the
`Irame's destination. The frames travel to their destination
`through a series of switches in the frame relay network,
`which is sometimes called a network "cloud", frame relay is
`an example ol packet-switched networking technology The
`transmission lines in the frame relay cloud must be essen-
`tially error-tree for frame relay to perform well, although
`error handling by other mechanisms at the data source and
`destination can compensate to some extent for lower line
`reliability, Frame relay and/or point-to-point network ser-
`vices are provided or have been provided by various carriers,
`such as A[&T, Qwest, XO, and MCI World'om
`Frame relay networks are an example of a network that is
`"disparate" from the Internet and from Internet based virtual
`invention
`private networks for purposes of the present
`Another example ol such a "disparate" network is a point-
`to-point network, such as a T' or 13 connection Although
`the underlying technologies differ somewhat, for purposes
`of the present invention frame relay networks and point-to-
`point networks are generally equivalent in important ways,
`such as the conventional reliance on manual switchovers
`when traffic must be redirected after a connection fails, and
`their implementation distinct from the Internet A frame
`relay permanent virtual circu2t is a virtual point-to-point
`
`connection Frame relays are used as examples throughout
`this document, but the teachings will also be understood in
`the context ol point-to-point networks.
`A frame relay or point-to-point network may become
`5 suddenly unavailable foruse For instance, both MCI World-
`Com and AT&T users have lost access to their respective
`frame relay networks during major outages Dunng each
`outage, the entire network failed Loss of a particular line or
`node in a network is relalively easy to work around. But loss
`to of an entire network creates much larger problems
`lols and techniques to permit continued data transmis-
`sion after loss of an entire frame relay network that would
`normally carry data are discussed in U S patent application
`Ser No 10/034,197 filed Dec 28, 2(101 and incorporated
`15 herein The '197 application focuses on architectures involv-
`ing two or more "private" networks in parallel, whereas the
`present application focuses on architectures involving dis-
`parate networks in parallel, such as a proprietary frame relay
`neiwork and the Internet. Note that the term "private net-
`20 work" is used herein in a manner consistent with its use in
`the '197 application (which comprises frame relay and
`point-to-point networks), except that a "virtual pnvate net-
`work" as discussed herein is not a "private network". Virtual
`private networks are Internet-based, and hence disparate
`2" from private networks, i e, from frame relay and point-to-
`point networks. To reduce the risk of confusion that might
`arise lrom misunderstandmg "private network" to compr.se
`"virtual private network" herein, virtual private networks
`will be henceforth referred to as VPNs. Other differences
`3$ and simdilaritis between the present application and the '197
`application will also be apparent to those of skill in the art
`on reading the two applications
`Various architectures involving multiple networks are
`35 known in the art. For instance, FIG 1 illustrates prior art
`involving two frame relay networks for
`configurations
`increased reliability; similar conligurations involve one or
`more point-to-point network connections Two sites 102
`transmit data to each other (alternately, one site might be
`40 only adata source,while the other is only a data destnation).
`Each site has two border routers 105 Two frame relay
`networks 106, 108 are available to the sites 102 through the
`routers 105. The two frame relay networks 106, 108 have
`been given separate numbers in the figure, even though each
`is a frame relay network, to emphasize the incompatibility of
`frame relay networks provided by diflferent carriers An
`AT&T frame relay network, for instance, is incompatible-
`frame size or switching
`in details such as maximum
`capacity-with an MCI WorldCom frame relay network,
`5o even though they are similar when one takes the broader
`view that encompasses disparate networks hke those dis-
`cussed herein The two frame relay providers have to agree
`upon information rates, switching capacities, frame sizes,
`etc. before the two networks can communicate directly with
`s each olbher
`A configuration like that shown in FIG. I may be actively
`and routinely using both frame relay networks A and B For
`instance, a local area network (LAN) at site 1 may be set up
`to send all traflic from the accounting and sales departments
`the engineering
`to router Al and send all traffic from
`department to router Bl. This may provide a very rough
`balance of the trafic load between the routers, but it does not
`attempt to balance router loads dynamically in response to
`actual traffic and thus is not "load-balancing" as that term is
`s used herein
`Alternatively, one of the frame relay networks may be a
`backup which is used only when the other frame relay
`
`so
`
`41
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`network becomes unavailable. In that case, it may take even
`skilled network administrators several hours to perform the
`steps needed to switch the traffic away from the failed
`network and onto the backup network, unless the invention
`o
`the '197 apphcation is used, In general, the necessary
`Private Virtual Circuits (PVC s ) must be established, routers
`at each site 102 must be reconfigured to use the correct serial
`links and PVCs, and IANs at each site 102 must be
`reconfigured to point at the correct router as the default
`gateway.
`Although two private networks are shown in FIG. 1, three
`or more such networks could be employed, with similar
`considerations coming into play as to increased reliability,
`limits on load balancing, the efforts needed to switch traffic
`when a network fads, and so on
`likewise, for clarity of
`illustrallon FIG. I shows only two sites, but three or more
`sites could communicate through one or more pnvate net-
`works.
`FIG. 2 illustrates a prior art configuration in which data is
`normally sent between sites 102 over a private network 106.
`A failover box 202 at each site 102 can detect failure of the
`network 106 and, in response to such a failure, will send the
`data instead over an ISDN link 204 while the network 106
`is down. Using an ISDN link 204 as a backup is relatively
`easier and less expensive than using another private network
`106 as the backup, but generally provides lower throughput.
`The ISDN link is an example of a point-to-point or leasedl
`line network link.
`FIG 3 illustrates prior art configurations involving two
`private networks for increased rehability, in the sense that
`some of the sites in a given government agency or other
`entity 302 can continue communicating even after one
`network goes down. 'or instance, if a frame relay network
`Agoes down, sites 1,2, and 3 will be unable to communicate
`with each other but sites 4, 5, and 6 will still be able to
`communicate amongst themselves through frame relay net
`work B likewise, if network B goes down, sites 1, 2, and
`3 will still be able to communicate through networkA Only
`if both networks go down at the same time would all sites be
`completely cut off Like the FIG. 1 configurations, the FIG.
`3 configuration uses two private networks. Unlike FIG 1,
`however, there is no option for switching traffic to another
`private network when one network 106 goes down, although
`either or both of the networks in FIG 3 could have an ISDN
`backup like that shown in FIG 2 Note also that even when
`both private networks are up, sites 1, 2, and 3 communicate
`only among themselves, they are not connected to rsites 4, 5,
`and 6 Networks A and B in FIG 3 are therefore not in
`"parallel" as that term is used herem, because all the traffic
`between each pair of sites goes through at most one of the
`networks A, B.
`FIG 4 illustrates a pror art response to the incompatibil-
`ity of frame relay networks of different carriers A special
`"network-to-network interface" (NNI) 402 is used to reli-
`ably transmit data between ihe two frame relay networks A
`and B NNIs are generally implemented in software at
`carrier offices Note that the configuration in FIG 4 does not
`provide additional reliability by using two frame relay
`networks 106, because those networks are in series rather
`than in parallel II either of the frame relay networks A, B in
`the FIG. 4 configuration fails, there is no path between site
`I and site 2, adding the second frame relay network has not
`increased reliability By contrast, FIG 1 increases reliability
`by placing the frame relay networks in parallel, so that an
`alternate path is available if either (but not both) of the frame
`relay networks fails. Someone of skill in the art who was
`looking for ways to improve rehabihliy by putting networks
`
`5
`
`15
`
`in parallel would probably not consider NNIs pertinent,
`because they were used for serial configurations rather than
`parallel ones, and adding networks in a serial manner does
`not improve reliability
`Internet-based communication solutions such as VPNs
`and Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) offer alternmatives to frame
`relay 106 and point-to-point leased line networks such as
`those using an ISDN link 204 These Internet-based solu-
`tions are advantageous in the flexibility and choice they offer
`to in cost, in service providers, and in vendors Accordingly,
`some organrzations have a frame relay 106 or leased line
`connection (a k a point-to-point) for intranet communica-
`lion and also have a connection for accessing the Internet
`500, using an architecture such as that shown in FIG 5
`But better tools and techniques are needed for use in
`architectures such as that shown in FIG. 5. In particular,
`prior approaches for selecting which network to use for
`which packet(s) are coarse For instance, all packets from
`dlepartment X might be sent over the frame relay connection
`2 106 while all packets from department Y are sent over the
`Internel 500 Or the archltecture might send all traffic over
`the frame relay network unless that network fails, and then
`be manually reconfigured to send all traffic over a VPN 502.
`Organizations are still looking for better ways to use
`Internet-based redundant connections to backup the primary
`frame relay networks. Also, organizations wanting to change
`from frame relay and point to-point solutions to Internet
`based solutions have not had the option of transitiomg in a
`a staged manner They have had to decide instead between the
`two solutions, and deploy the solurtion intheir entire network
`communications system in one step. This is a barrier for
`deployment of Internet-based solutions 500/502, since an
`existing working network would be replaced by a yet-
`35 untested new network Also, for organizations with several
`geographically distributed locations a single step conversion
`is very complex Some organ sations may want a redundant
`Internet-based backup between a few locations while main-
`taming the frame relay network for the entire organization.
`It would be an advancement in the art to provide new tools
`and techniques for configunng disparate networks (e g.
`trame relay/point-to-point WANs and Internet-based VPNs)
`in parallel, to obtain benefits such as greater reliability,
`improved security, and/or load-balancing Such improve-
`45 menus are disclosed and claimed herein
`BRIEF SUMMARY 01 "IE
`INVENTION
`
`25
`
`40
`
`The present invention provides tools and techniques for
`directing packets over multiple parallel disparate networks,
`50 based on addresses and other criteria. This helps organiza
`tions make better use of frame relay networks and/or point-
`to-point (e g, Tl, 13, fiber, OCx, Gigabit, wireless, or
`satellite based) nelwork connections in parallel with VPNs
`and/or other Internet-based networks For instance, some
`s, embodiments ol the invention allow frame relay and VPN
`wide area networks to co-exist for redundancy as well as for
`transitiong from
`frame relay/point-to-point solutions to
`Internet-based solutions in a staged manner Some embodl-
`ments operate in configurations which communicate data
`o packets over two or more disparate WAN connections, with
`the data traffic being dynamically load-balanced across the
`connections, while some embodiments treat one of the
`WANs as a backup for use mainly in case the primary
`connection through the other WAN fails.
`Other features and advantages of the invention will
`become more fully apparent through the following descrip-
`tion
`
`a5
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`US 6,775,235 B2
`
`5
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`To illustrate the manner in which the advantages and
`leatures of the invention are obtained, a more particular
`description of the invention will be given with reference to
`the attached drawings These drawings only illustrate
`In the
`selected aspects of the invention and its context
`drawings
`FIG 1 is a diagram illustrating a prior art approach having
`in parallel for increased
`Lrame relay networks configured
`reliabihity lor all networked sites, in configurations
`that
`employ manual switchover between the two frame relay
`networks in case of failure.
`FIG. 2 s a diagram illustrating a prior ar approach having
`a frame relay network configured m parallel with an ISDN
`network link for increased reliability for all networked sites
`FIG 3 is a diagram illustrating a prior art approach having
`independent and non-parallel frame relay networks, with
`each network connecting several sites but no routine or
`extensive communication between the networks.
`FIG 4 is a diagram illustrating a prior an approach having
`trame relay networks configured
`in series through a
`network-to-network interface, with no consequent increase
`in reliability because the networks are in series rather than
`in parallel.
`FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating a prior art approach having
`a frame relay network configured in parallel with a VPN or
`other Internet-based network that is disparate to the frame
`relay network, hbut without the fine-grained packet routing of
`the present invention
`FIG 6 s a diagram illustrating one system configuration
`of the present mvention, in which the Internet and a private
`network are placed in parallel for increased reliability for all
`networked sites, without requiring manual
`traffic
`switchover, and with the option in some embodtments of
`load balancing between the networks and/or increasing
`security by transmitting packets ol a single logical connec-
`tion over disparate networks
`FIG. 7 is a diagram further illustrating a multiple disparate
`network access controller of the present invention, which
`comprises an interface component for each network to
`which the controller connects, and a path selector in the
`controller which uses one or more of the following as
`criteria: destination address, network status (up/down), net
`work load, use of a particular network for previous packets
`in a given logical connection or session
`FIG 8 Is a flowchart illustrating methods of the present
`invention for sending packets using a controller such as the
`one shown in FIG, 7,
`FiG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating methods of the present
`invention for combinimmng connections to send traffic over
`multiple parallel independent disparate networks for reasons
`such as enhanced reliability, load balancing, and/or security.
`FIG 10 is a diagram illustrating another system configu-
`ration of the present invention, in which the Internet and a
`frame relay network are placed in parallel, with a VPN
`tunnel originating after the source controller and terminating
`before the destination controller, and each known site that is
`accessible through one network is also accessible through
`the other network unless that other network fails.
`FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating a system configuration
`similar to FIG 10, except the VPN tunnel originates before
`the source controller and terminates after the destination
`controller
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TIE
`PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
`the preent invention relates to methods, systems, and
`configured storage media for connecting sites over multiple
`
`s
`
`independent parallel disparate networks, such as frame relay
`networks and/or point-to-point network connections, on the
`one hand, and VPNs or other Internet-based network
`connections, on the other hand "Multiple" networks means
`two or more such networks "Independent" means routing
`information need not be shared between
`the networks.
`"Parallel" does not rule out all use of NNIs and serial
`networks, hut it does require that at least two of the networks
`in the configuration he in parallel at the location where the
`traffic, so that alternate data paths
`o invention distributes
`through different networks are present. "Frame relay net-
`works" or"private networks" does not rule out the use of an
`ISDN link or other backup for a particular frame relay or
`point to point private network, but it does require the pros
`15 ence of multiple such networks, FIG 2, for instance, does
`not meet this requirement A "frame relay network ' is
`unavailable to the general pubhc and thus disparate from the
`Internet and VPNs (which may be Internet-based), even
`though some traffic in the Internet may use public Irame
`2o relay networks once the traffic leaves the location where the
`invention distributes traffic
`FIG 6 illustrates one of many possible configurations of
`the present invention. Comments made here also apply to
`similar configuratlons involving only one or more frame
`25 relay networks 106, those involving only one or more
`point-to-point networks 204, and those not involving a VPN
`604, for example Two or more disparate networks are
`placed in parallel between two or more sites 102
`In the
`illustrated configuration, the Internet 500 and a VPN 604 are
`3o disparate from, and in parallel with, frame relay/point-to-
`point network 106/204, with respect to site A and site B No
`networks are parallel disparate networks in FIG. 6 with
`regard to site C as a traffic source, since that site is not
`connected
`to the Internet 500 Access
`to the disparate
`35 networks at site A and and site B is through an inventive
`controller 602 at each site Additional controllers 602 may
`be used at each location (i.e , controllers 602 may be placed
`in parallel to one another) in order to