Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Source routing

Source routing is a technique in computer networks where the sender of a data packet partially or completely specifies the route the packet takes through the network to its destination, contrasting with traditional hop-by-hop routing where each intermediate device independently determines the next hop. In the Internet Protocol (IP), source routing is implemented as an optional field in the IP header, allowing the originating host to list intermediate IP addresses that the packet must traverse. This feature was defined in the original IP specification and supports two variants: loose source routing, where intermediate gateways may use any path to reach the next specified address, and strict source routing, where the packet must be forwarded directly to the next address without deviation. The route data is encoded in the options field, with a pointer indicating the current position in the route list, and gateways update the destination address and record their own address as the packet progresses. Similar source routing in IPv6 using the Type 0 Routing Header has been deprecated due to security concerns. Historically, source routing played a key role in environments like networks through source-route bridging (SRB), where the source station embeds a Route Information Field (RIF) in the frame header to define the path across multiple rings and bridges, supporting up to seven bridge hops for efficient frame forwarding at the MAC layer. In modern networking, source routing has evolved into paradigms like , which leverages the source routing concept to steer packets via an ordered list of segments—such as addresses, node identifiers, or MPLS labels—encoded in packet headers for scalable traffic engineering in software-defined networks (SDNs) and data centers. SR enables flexible path control without per-flow state in the network, supporting applications like fast reroute and service function chaining. Additionally, protocols like (DSR) adapt source routing for mobile networks by dynamically discovering and caching routes in packet headers. Despite its advantages in path control and diagnostics, source routing's use in core networks has diminished due to security risks, such as the potential to bypass controls and enable denial-of-service attacks.

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Source is a technique in computer networking in which the source determines and specifies the complete or partial path that packets must follow to reach the destination, embedding this route information directly into the packet headers. This approach enables the source to exert control over the packet's trajectory through the network, differing from conventional destination-based where intermediate routers independently compute the next hop using their local tables and destination addresses. The core principles of source routing revolve around the encoding and processing of route data within packets. Route information is typically represented as a sequence of intermediate identifiers or next-hop addresses stored in dedicated header fields, allowing for variable-length lists to accommodate different complexities. Upon receipt, routers parse this embedded route and forward the packet to the specified next without relying on their own routing computations or tables, ensuring the packet adheres strictly to the predefined unless otherwise configured. This mechanism reduces overhead at intermediate nodes but places the burden of path selection on the source. Key components of source routing include route computation at , header storage mechanisms, and provisions for error handling. The node computes the route using its knowledge of the network topology, often applying algorithms such as shortest-path methods to optimize for metrics like or . These routes are then inserted into header fields designed for route data, which can expand or contract as the packet progresses. If an intermediate in the route is unreachable or the route data becomes invalid (e.g., pointer exceeds the list length), the packet is typically discarded, and an error notification, such as an (ICMP) message, is returned to to inform it of the failure. To illustrate, consider a basic with source node S connected to intermediate nodes A, B, and C, ultimately reaching destination D, where alternative paths exist (e.g., S directly to C). In source routing, S embeds the explicit path S → A → B → C → D in the packet header; each router (A, B, C) then forwards solely based on this list, bypassing local decisions. By comparison, in hop-by-hop , S addresses the packet only to D, and A might forward to B (or C) based on its entry for D, potentially selecting a different path. This example highlights how source routing enforces a predetermined trajectory for reliability or .

Strict vs. Loose Source Routing

Source routing operates in two primary modes: strict and loose, each providing different levels of control over packet paths in a . Strict source routing requires the source to specify the complete sequence of intermediate nodes that a packet must traverse exactly as listed, with no deviations permitted; each forwarding device must send the packet directly to the very next specified hop via a directly connected , ensuring precise path adherence. This mode is particularly suited to environments where the is fully known and controlled, such as local area networks, allowing for deterministic without reliance on intermediate routing tables. In contrast, loose source routing enables the source to designate only key waypoints or intermediate nodes that the packet must visit, while permitting forwarding devices to select any valid route between these points, including multiple hops if necessary. This flexibility accommodates intermediate routing decisions based on local conditions, making it more adaptable to dynamic or partially unknown topologies. As seen in protocols like , loose source routing allows packets to reach specified nodes without mandating the exact path segments in between. The key differences between strict and loose source routing lie in their path enforcement, processing requirements, and resilience to network changes, as summarized below:
AspectStrict Source RoutingLoose Source Routing
Path SpecificationComplete, exact sequence of all provided by ; no intermediate choices allowed.Partial list of waypoints; routes between waypoints determined by intermediate nodes.
Header EncodingRoute data as a full ordered list of IP addresses, with a pointer indicating current position; type 137 in IPv4 options.Similar encoding with ordered list and pointer, but subsets (waypoints) used; type 131 in IPv4 options.
Error ConditionsPacket discarded if next hop is not directly adjacent to current node, leading to failure on changes.Packet can be rerouted via alternative paths to reach next waypoint, increasing delivery success.
Computational OverheadLower processing at intermediates (simple next-hop forwarding), but must compute and embed full , limiting for long routes.Higher potential overhead due to computations between waypoints, but easier for sources to specify partial paths in large networks.
Strict source routing excels in use cases demanding predictable, low-latency paths, such as systems or controlled local networks where exact routing ensures minimal and reliable performance without distributed state. Loose source routing, however, supports scalable networks requiring partial control, like those with variable topologies, by balancing source-specified guidance with local autonomy to avoid the overhead of full path specification.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Networks

The concept of source routing originated in the late 1960s and 1970s amid foundational research on packet-switched networks, where explicit path specification was proposed to handle dynamic topologies and mitigate issues like frequent link failures. These early ideas drew inspiration from circuit-switched telephony systems, which established dedicated end-to-end paths for reliable communication, adapting similar principles of sender-controlled routing to the more flexible but unpredictable environment of datagram networks. Carl Sunshine's 1977 paper provided a seminal theoretical foundation, describing source routing as a technique where the packet source specifies the full route to minimize intermediate gateway computations and support efficient traversal in multi-network environments. These efforts highlighted source routing's potential for sender autonomy in early distributed systems.

Evolution and Standardization

Source routing was formally incorporated into the Internet Protocol as an optional feature in IPv4 through RFC 791, published in 1981 by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), allowing senders to specify explicit paths via strict or loose options in the IP header. This standardization aimed to support flexible routing in early internetworks while maintaining compatibility with hop-by-hop forwarding. In IPv6, introduced in RFC 2460 in 1998, source routing was enabled through the Type 0 Routing Header, which permitted intermediate nodes to be listed for packet traversal. However, vulnerabilities emerged, leading to its deprecation in RFC 5095 in 2007, primarily due to the potential for traffic amplification attacks that could loop packets between routers and overwhelm networks in denial-of-service scenarios. During the 1990s, as internet growth strained traditional models, source routing influenced hybrid approaches in (ATM) networks, where connection-oriented virtual circuits integrated with to balance explicit path control and scalability in broadband environments. Similarly, (MPLS), standardized in the late 1990s via 3031, introduced label stacking as a partial analog to source routing, enabling explicit path engineering through stacked labels that guide packets along predefined segments without full header options. These evolutions addressed limitations in pure source routing by combining it with label-based forwarding for better performance in large-scale, multi-service networks. Following security-driven deprecations, loose source routing in IPv4 was disabled by default in many commercial routers after 2000 to mitigate risks like unauthorized path manipulation, reflecting broader industry shifts toward secure, default-deny configurations. In modern contexts, source routing has seen revival through Software-Defined Networking (SDN), particularly with OpenFlow's introduction in 2008, which enables centralized controllers to install source-routed flows for dynamic path selection and traffic engineering. This approach leverages programmable switches to implement explicit routing without per-packet overhead, enhancing control in data centers and wide-area networks. Recent IETF efforts in the 2020s, including Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) standardized in RFC 8754 (2020), explore secure source routing adaptations for 5G and emerging 6G architectures, with deployments in 5G networks as of 2025 focusing on encrypted path segments and policy-based steering to support network slicing while addressing amplification and hijacking threats. In specialized domains, the European Cooperation for Space Standardization (ECSS) formalized SpaceWire in 2003 under ECSS-E-50-12A, incorporating source routing principles for deterministic, high-reliability data links in aerospace systems.

Implementations in Protocols

Internet Protocol

In the (IPv4), source routing is implemented through optional fields in the , specifically the Loose Source and Record Route (LSRR) option with code 131 and the Strict Source and Record Route (SSRR) option with code 137. These options allow the source host to specify a sequence of IP addresses that the packet must traverse, with LSRR permitting intermediate routers not listed in the route and SSRR requiring the packet to follow the exact path without deviations. The format of these options includes an 8-bit code, an 8-bit length field indicating the total option size in octets, an 8-bit pointer specifying the offset to the next address to process (starting at 4), followed by variable-length route data consisting of 32-bit IPv4 addresses. As the packet travels, each router inserts its own IPv4 address into the record route portion at the current pointer position before forwarding, enabling the sender to reconstruct the actual path taken upon receipt. For IPv6, the original source routing mechanism used a Type 0 Routing Header as an extension header, identified by a Next Header value of 43 and Routing Type 0, which carried an ordered list of up to 127 IPv6 addresses forming an address vector. This header's structure comprised an 8-bit Next Header field, an 8-bit Header Extension Length (in 8-octet units minus 1), the 8-bit Routing Type (0), an 8-bit Segments Left field indicating remaining addresses to visit, a 32-bit Reserved field, and the address vector of 128-bit IPv6 addresses. During processing, an intermediate router decrements the Segments Left field; if it reaches zero, the router treats the packet as destined for itself, otherwise, it copies the next address from the vector into the packet's IPv6 Destination Address field, increments the implicit pointer, and forwards accordingly. However, the Type 0 Routing Header was deprecated in 2007 due to vulnerabilities enabling denial-of-service attacks through traffic amplification, such as packet loops between routers. Modern IPv6 source routing has been replaced by Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6), defined in RFC 8754, which introduces a new Type 4 Routing Header (Segment Routing Header, SRH) for programmable paths using segment identifiers encoded as addresses. The SRH structure includes fields for Segments Left, Last Entry (indicating the final segment index), Flags, a , and an optional area, followed by a list of segment addresses, allowing fine-grained path control while addressing prior security issues. In operational environments, IPv4 routers process source-routed packets by examining the options field; if the pointer exceeds the route length, the packet is forwarded normally using destination-based , but otherwise, the next hop is set to the specified address. For , similar logic applies to the Routing Header, with the current destination updated from the segments list until Segments Left is zero. Configuration to enable processing of source-routed packets, which is disabled by default for , can be done in via sysctl settings such as net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_source_route = 1 for IPv4 interfaces. Source routing in both IPv4 and IPv6 is deprecated for production networks primarily due to security risks, including potential for reconnaissance of and exploitation in amplification attacks, with 1812 explicitly recommending that IPv4 routers not forward source-routed packets unless from trusted sources. Its use is now limited to laboratory, testing, or diagnostic environments where controlled is needed.

Software-Defined Networking

In software-defined networking (SDN), source routing is facilitated through centralized control, where a controller programs flow tables in network switches to specify explicit packet forwarding paths as sequences of actions, such as output ports, rather than relying on destination addresses. This mechanism decouples the control plane from the data plane, allowing the controller to compute and install paths dynamically based on global network visibility, thereby enabling fine-grained traffic engineering and optimization. Unlike traditional distributed routing, SDN source routing reduces state overhead in switches by embedding path information in packet headers or leveraging multi-stage flow rules. Key protocols supporting this include , starting with version 1.0 released in December 2009, which introduces match-action tables that allow controllers to define precise forwarding behaviors, such as sequential outputs to specific ports for path enforcement. In , switches match incoming packets against flow entries and apply actions like forwarding to designated ports, enabling the realization of source-routed paths without native options. Complementing this, the P4 programming language, introduced in 2014, extends capabilities by permitting custom header parsing and processing, where developers can define protocol-independent structures to encode and decode source route information directly in packets. For instance, P4's parser state machine can extract fields like port sequences from custom headers (e.g., an mTag with encoded upstream and downstream ports), allowing switches to advance the route autonomously. Implementation typically involves the controller computing optimal paths using algorithms such as Dijkstra's for shortest-path routing, then installing flow rules via southbound APIs like only at path ingress points to minimize switch state. Reverse paths for bidirectional flows can be derived locally at switches, reducing controller load by up to 50% in evaluated topologies. A practical example is simulating source-routed flows in Mininet, an SDN , to demonstrate load balancing by splitting traffic across multiple paths, as shown in evaluations on fat-tree networks where elephant flows are handled to avoid congestion. In modern deployments, SDN source routing is particularly valuable in data centers for managing elephant flows—large, bandwidth-intensive transfers—by splitting them into subflows routed via diverse paths, improving fairness with short mice flows and reducing completion times. The ONOS controller, released in 2012, incorporates source routing extensions through its SDN-IP application, which computes and installs paths across wide-area networks (WANs) to optimize traffic engineering and resource utilization in distributed environments.

Applications in Specialized Networks

Myrinet

Myrinet is a high-performance networking technology developed by Myricom in the , designed as a system area network (SAN) for interconnecting clusters of workstations and servers in environments, often described as a "LAN of LANs" due to its ability to scale across thousands of nodes. It employs source routing to enable efficient, low-latency communication in scalable topologies such as Clos networks or fat-tree configurations, where switches form multi-stage interconnects without relying on centralized routing tables. This hardware-based approach allows for flexible wiring and incremental expansion, supporting irregular or multidimensional (2D/3D) layouts common in systems. In Myrinet, source routing is implemented through a variable-length header in each packet, which encodes the complete path as a sequence of routing bytes, each specifying relative port offsets (e.g., +3 or -2) for switch traversal, with a maximum of up to 32 hops depending on the diameter. Switches perform (cut-through) forwarding, immediately relaying packets upon decoding the leading routing byte without buffer-to-buffer copying or table lookups, stripping one byte per hop and recalculating an 8-bit for detection. This direct, bit-level mechanism, combined with hardware flow control and virtual cut-through to prevent deadlocks, ensures minimal overhead, achieving end-to-end latencies under 5 μs for short messages between user processes on commodity hardware. Routes are precomputed at the source host using a map generated by software like the Fabric Mapping Agent, enabling multipath utilization in fat-tree topologies for load balancing. Key features of Myrinet's source routing include inherent , as the source can dynamically recompute alternative paths upon detecting errors via periodic updates, without interrupting switch operations. The Myrinet 2000 series, released in 2001, exemplified this with 2 Gb/s full-duplex links per port, supporting clusters of over 1,000 nodes in multi-stage switches like the 16-port XBar16 crossbar, delivering full in Clos configurations up to 128 hosts with a of three switches. These attributes made Myrinet prominent in early supercomputing, powering 28% of systems on the 2002 TOP500 list, including clusters for parallel applications in scientific simulations. By 2006, Myrinet evolved with the introduction of the Myrinet Express (MX) software stack, which maintained the core efficiency of source-precomputed paths while adding compatibility with Ethernet hardware through Myri-10G network interface cards, allowing seamless integration into hybrid environments without altering the underlying principles for Myrinet fabrics. This transition preserved low-latency messaging for message-passing interfaces like MPI in large-scale clusters, though later Ethernet-based implementations shifted away from hardware source routing toward software-managed alternatives.

SpaceWire

SpaceWire is a standardized for high-speed, point-to-point data links in onboard networks, as defined in the (ECSS) document ECSS-E-ST-50-12C, originally published in 2008 and revised in 2019. It utilizes source routing through path addressing to enable deterministic packet paths across routers in point-to-point topologies, ensuring reliable data transfer in radiation-prone environments without relying on dynamic route discovery. This approach allows systems to connect instruments, processors, and units with predictable latency and . In the SpaceWire mechanism, each packet begins with a destination identifier followed by a path address, a sequence of characters (values 0-31) that encode the exact route through successive routers. Upon receiving a packet, a router extracts and discards the leading character from the path address to select the output port, forwarding the remaining packet accordingly; if the path address is exhausted, the packet reaches its destination . Time-code packets, broadcast at high , insert signals across the network, while the supports rates from 2 Mb/s up to 400 Mb/s over screened twisted-pair cables. For fault isolation, source-specified alternate paths can be implemented by network design, such as group adaptive routing that distributes packets across multiple links from a single router port. The Remote Memory Access (RMAP), specified in ECSS-E-ST-50-52C, integrates directly with routing to facilitate remote , status reading, and transfers between . A notable application of source routing is in the European Space Agency's (ESA) mission to Mercury, launched in 2018, where it routes instrument data across the spacecraft's onboard network for real-time processing and telemetry downlink. In space contexts, SpaceWire's advantages include radiation-tolerant implementations that withstand cosmic rays, low power consumption enabled by (LVDS), and the elimination of dynamic routing to avoid potential single points of failure, thereby enhancing overall system reliability in harsh orbital conditions. This static routing model aligns with strict source routing principles, prioritizing predefined paths over adaptive adjustments.

Advantages and Challenges

Benefits

Source routing provides deterministic paths that ensure predictable packet delivery, minimizing and variations critical for applications. By allowing the source to specify the exact route in advance, intermediate nodes forward packets without recomputing paths, which eliminates delays associated with decisions and supports bounded end-to-end guarantees. This determinism is particularly beneficial for quality-of-service (QoS) requirements in streaming and voice communications, where consistent performance prevents disruptions from variable delays. A major advantage lies in its support for traffic engineering, enabling load balancing across multiple paths to optimize resource utilization and avoid congestion hotspots. The source can encode explicit paths that distribute traffic evenly, such as through equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) awareness or weighted load sharing, reducing wasted bandwidth in network cores. In data centers with known topologies, this global optimization allows for selecting optimal routes that enhance overall throughput and efficiency, often achieving notable bandwidth savings by minimizing suboptimal traversals. Additionally, source routing facilitates fault avoidance by pre-specifying alternate routes around known or detected failures, enabling fast reroute mechanisms without extensive signaling overhead. The approach significantly reduces routing overhead at intermediate nodes, as they no longer maintain complex routing tables or perform per-hop computations, shifting responsibility to the source and destination. This simplification enhances scalability in environments like software-defined networks (SDNs), where studies from the demonstrate substantial cuts in time during failures—up to orders of magnitude faster than traditional hop-by-hop protocols—by avoiding controller-to-switch communications for each update. In embedded systems, source routing promotes by enabling the selection of minimal-hop paths, conserving power in resource-constrained topologies through reduced transmission and processing demands.

Limitations and Security Issues

One key limitation of source routing is the additional overhead it imposes on packet headers. In IPv4, the loose source and record route option can extend the header by up to 40 bytes to accommodate up to nine intermediate addresses, reducing the effective (MTU) and potentially fragmenting packets in networks with strict size limits. This header bloat becomes more pronounced in scenarios requiring long paths, exacerbating inefficiency. Scalability issues further hinder source routing's applicability in large networks. The source host must maintain complete knowledge of the network to specify valid routes, which becomes infeasible as the number of nodes and links increases, leading to outdated or invalid paths if topology changes occur. Moreover, the computational burden on the sender is substantial, as it requires path computation and header encoding for each packet, contrasting with the distributed decision-making of traditional hop-by-hop . Source routing also presents significant vulnerabilities. attacks, such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS), can exploit looped or malformed routes to generate excessive recirculation, overwhelming resources; this risk prompted the of IPv6 Type 0 routing headers in 2007. Additionally, the explicit path information in source routing headers enables , allowing attackers to infer and map internal for targeted exploits. Other challenges include problems in heterogeneous environments, where devices may drop or mishandle source-routed packets, disrupting communication. overhead is another concern, as frequent updates necessitate constant route recomputation and redistribution at , increasing operational . Modern implementations address some of these issues through targeted mitigations. For Segment Routing over (SRv6), and can be provided using to protect traffic, though the segment routing header is generally visible to intermediate nodes unless using appropriate tunneling modes. In (SDN), centralized controllers validate imposed routes against policies, preventing unauthorized or malicious paths while reducing sender-side computation. Common defenses, such as rules to block source routing options or administrative disabling of the feature, remain widely recommended to mitigate risks in production networks.

References

  1. [1]
    RFC 791 - Internet Protocol - IETF Datatracker
    The internet protocol is designed for use in interconnected systems of packet-switched computer communication networks. Such a system has been called a catenet.
  2. [2]
    Understanding and Troubleshooting Local Source-Route Bridging
    Sep 9, 2005 · Source-Route Bridging (SRB) is the concept by which a station in a Token Ring environment can establish a route through a multiple ring network ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Hop-by-Hop Routing Source Routing - Stony Brook Computer Science
    Source Routing. • In source routing, the data packet has the complete route (called source route) in the header. • Typically, the source node builds the ...Missing: computer | Show results with:computer
  4. [4]
    Routing, start of TCP (CS 4410, Summer 2018)
    One way to accomplish this is to use source routing: before sending a packet the sender examines the network and selects a path, encoding the path into the ...
  5. [5]
    None
    ### Summary of Source Routing in RFC 791
  6. [6]
    Circuit-switched network | Definition, History, & Facts - Britannica
    Circuit-switched networks have the advantage of minimizing transmission delays, especially compared with packet-switched networks. They work well for ...
  7. [7]
    Source routing in computer networks - ACM Digital Library
    Source routing is when the source of internet packets specifies the complete route, eliminating routing decisions at gateways, but increasing packet overhead.
  8. [8]
    [PDF] A Graduate Course in Computer Networks
    switching is source routing, where the header contains a complete sequence of switches, or ... Similar to CYCLADES and ARPANET protocols. (CYCLADES was.
  9. [9]
    RFC 814 - Name, addresses, ports, and routes - IETF Datatracker
    The user might initially obtain the source route by querying a different sort of name server, which would return a source route instead of an address, or the ...
  10. [10]
    RFC 2460 - Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
    This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), also sometimes referred to as IP Next Generation or IPng.
  11. [11]
    RFC 5095: Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
    RFC 5095 deprecates IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headers (RH0) due to traffic amplification for denial-of-service attacks. RH0 can oscillate between routers, causing  ...
  12. [12]
    [PDF] ATM switching and IP Routing Integration
    In particular we focus on recent work that tightly integrates the IP and ATM layers to produce hybrid(or integrated) ATM switch/ IP routers with very favourable.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] The Road to SDN: An Intellectual History of Programmable Networks
    SDN's history includes active networks, control/data plane separation, and OpenFlow/network OS. It separates the control plane, enabling network management ...<|separator|>
  14. [14]
    [PDF] ECSS-E-50-12A (24 January 2003)
    Jan 24, 2003 · The SpaceWire cable comprises four twisted pair wires with a separate shield around each twisted pair and an overall shield. To achieve a high ...
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
    RFC 5095 - Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
    RFC 5095 deprecates IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headers (RH0) due to traffic amplification for denial-of-service attacks. RH0 can oscillate between routers, causing  ...
  18. [18]
    RFC 8754 - IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH) - IETF Datatracker
    RFC 8754. IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH). Abstract. Segment Routing can be applied to the IPv6 data plane using a new type of Routing Extension Header ...Table of Contents · Segment Routing Header · SR Nodes · Packet Processing
  19. [19]
  20. [20]
    IP Sysctl - The Linux Kernel documentation
    Enable IP forwarding on this interface. This controls whether packets ... Accept source routing (routing extension header). >= 0: Accept only routing ...
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
    RFC 7126 - Recommendations on Filtering of IPv4 Packets ...
    Strict Source and Record Route (SSRR) (Type = 137) 4.4.1. Uses This option allows the originating system to specify a number of intermediate systems a ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Source Routed Forwarding with Software Defined Control ... - Events
    Dec 10, 2012 · ABSTRACT. The research introduced in this paper focuses on controller scalability and performance issues in Software-Defined Networks.
  24. [24]
    [PDF] OpenFlow Switch Specification - Open Networking Foundation
    This specification covers the components and the basic functions of the switch, and the OpenFlow protocol to manage an OpenFlow switch from a remote controller.
  25. [25]
    [PDF] P4: Programming Protocol-Independent Packet Processors
    P4 is a high-level language for programming protocol-inde- pendent packet processors. P4 works in conjunction with. SDN control protocols like OpenFlow. In its ...
  26. [26]
    (PDF) Leveraging ONOS SDN Controllers for OF@TEIN SD-WAN ...
    Aug 8, 2025 · In this paper, we discuss on-going experiments at OF@TEIN Playground to evaluate the feasibility of SD-WAN (software-defined wide area ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Myrinet - UCLA Computer Science
    The Myrinet local area network employs the same technology used for packet com- munication and switching within massively parallel processors.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Guide to Myrinet-2000 Switches and Switch Networks - filibeto.org
    Myricom ships Fiber components with a dust plug in each port. It is recommended that the dust plug be left in place in unused switch ports. The fiber cable is ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] The Myrinet High-speed Network - LISHA
    Myrinet Crossbar Switches. 3. Source routing (worm-hole). 1 Cut-through switching method. 1 Forwarding of a packet begins as soon as its destination is ...
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Myrinet Crossbar Switch and Network Interface Card - NASA NEPP
    Jan 31, 2002 · The source route is the beginning of a Myrinet packet that is interpreted sequentially by the switches encountered on the route, with each ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] A Case Study of Two HPC Network Issues - USENIX
    Myrinet is a source routed protocol, which means that the hosts themselves decide how their packets will travel through the switch fabric.
  32. [32]
    TOP500 Lists Show Widespread Use Of Myrinet Technology
    Nov 20, 2002 · A total of 140 or 28% of the November TOP500 supercomputer sites use Myrinet technology. 15 of the top 100 systems are Beowulf-style Myrinet ...Missing: source routing
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Myrinet Converges with Ethernet
    Oct 4, 2006 · Bell Micro is Myricom's distributor for 10-Gigabit Ethernet NICs in the US and Europe. OEMs and cluster integrators continue to buy direct from.
  34. [34]
    ECSS-E-ST-50-12C – SpaceWire – Links, nodes, routers and ...
    SpaceWire enables high-speed data transfer (2-400 Mb/s) between units, using full-duplex, point-to-point, serial links, and sending packets from source to ...Missing: routing | Show results with:routing
  35. [35]
    [PDF] ECSS-E-ST-50-52C5February2010.pdf - Space engineering
    Feb 5, 2010 · RMAP is specified in this Standard. The remote memory access protocol (RMAP) has been designed to support a wide range of SpaceWire applications ...
  36. [36]
    BepiColombo - eoPortal
    BepiColombo is the first spacecraft with a network application of SpaceWire interfaces. The MPO provides all the intelligence during cruise and is enhanced with ...
  37. [37]
    An Overview of the SpaceWire Standard - STAR-Dundee
    When more than one link connects a pair of routing switches, group adaptive routing can be used to share the bandwidth of the links or to provide for fault ...
  38. [38]
    RFC 8557 - Deterministic Networking Problem Statement
    May 21, 2019 · This paper documents the needs in various industries to establish multi-hop paths for characterized flows with deterministic properties.
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Quality of Service Routing for Supporting Multimedia Applications
    Thus, we can use hop-by-hop routing for general-purpose QoS routing, and use source routing for handling special cases and as a mechanism to override general ...
  40. [40]
    RFC 7855 - Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING ...
    In most cases, traffic engineering makes use of the "loose" route option ... It is obvious that, in the case of long, strict source-routed paths, the ...
  41. [41]
    A comprehensive survey on Segment Routing Traffic Engineering
    In addition, a composite candidate path can be used for grouping SR Policies and thus, enables SR-TE to load balance traffic over different segment lists with ...
  42. [42]
    Source routing in computer networks - ACM Digital Library
    This paper considers another technique for internet routing in whic h the source of internet packets specifies the complete internet route . When the entire ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  43. [43]
    Exploring source routed forwarding in SDN-based WANs
    Our analysis shows that source routing can bring significant gains in SDN convergence performance in WAN environments and reduce the sensitivity in performance ...
  44. [44]
    On the Problem of Energy Efficiency of Multi-Hop vs ... - IEEE Xplore
    This paper explores when multi-hop routing is more energy efficient than direct transmission to the sink and the conditions for which the two-hop strategy is ...
  45. [45]
    Hierarchical source routing using implied costs - ScienceDirect.com
    Source routing has the additional advantage that there is no need to run a standardized routing algorithm to avoid loops and policy issues such as provider ...Missing: limitations bloat
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Improving the Reliability of Internet Paths with One-hop Source ...
    Our research demonstrates that one-hop source rout- ing is easy to implement, adds negligible overhead, and achieves close to the maximum benefit available to ...Missing: interoperability maintenance
  47. [47]
    [PDF] IPv6 Routing Header Security.
    Type 0 : the evil mechanism we describe in this presentation, that provides an extended version of IPv4 loose source routing option. Type 1 : defined by Nimrod, ...
  48. [48]
    RFC 8986: Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) Network Programming
    Feb 1, 2021 · This document defines the SRv6 Network Programming concept and specifies the main Segment Routing behaviors to enable the creation of interoperable overlays ...
  49. [49]
    RFC 4728: The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile ...
    The Dynamic Source Routing protocol (DSR) is a simple and efficient routing protocol designed specifically for use in multi-hop wireless ad hoc networks of ...
  50. [50]
    Developing an SDN security model (EnsureS) based on lightweight ...
    Oct 13, 2023 · This research paper introduces a model called EnsureS, which aims to enhance the security of SDN by proposing an efficient and secure service path validation ...
  51. [51]
    IPv6 Type 0 Routing Headers - Cisco
    This document will focus on the IPv6 extension header Type 0 Routing header, which is used by an IPv6 source to list one or more intermediate nodes to be ...IPv6 Extension Header... · IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header · Filtering Type 0 Routing...