Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput – Computer-to-computer data addressing
Reexamination Certificate
1999-09-07
2002-11-12
Maung, Zarni (Department: 2154)
Electrical computers and digital processing systems: multicomput
Computer-to-computer data addressing
C709S226000, C709S229000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06480900
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a communication process in a set of distributed systems through an internet type network.
More particularly, the invention relates to the naming, the addressing, and the routing of information between the distributed systems, via one or more networks or subnetworks using internet technology.
Within the scope of the present invention, the term “internet” should be understood in its most general sense. It specifically includes, in addition to the global network of computers known as the “Internet” per se, private corporate networks or the like, known as “intranets,” and the networks that extend them to the outside, known as “extranets.”
It is also useful, for purposes of clarity, to review several definitions used in the description of the present invention.
Hereinafter, a unit, a data processing machine, or more generally, a platform, using an operating system (“OS”) will be called a “system.” These systems are connected to one another by one or more networks or subnetworks, at least some of which use internet technology, in the sense mentioned above. Hereinafter, the terms “networks” and “subnetworks” will be used interchangeably.
These systems host “servers.” A server is generally defined as being software or a software entity that provides a given service (for example, file transfer software).
In internet technology, so-called “IP” addresses are used. An address of this type is structured and comprises a subnetwork address, called a prefix, and an address of an entity in this subnetwork.
Referring again to a server, it is addressable according to the prior art by means of an IP address as just defined and a port number, which will be designated P
i
, with i being an arbitrary subscript. This port number typically comprises two bytes and makes it possible to reach the server i in the system.
In summary, if a system with the arbitrary subscript
0
is referenced S
0
, and is associated with an IP address notated “X, X
0
”, this means that this system S
0
is connected to the subnetwork with the prefix X, with X
0
as its address in this subnetwork. A system can naturally be connected to several subnetworks. In this case, it has as many IP addresses as there are subnetworks.
Although the invention applies to all sorts of existing applications or services, it applies more particularly to distributed systems using “object” technology and to communications of the “client-server” type. To explain the concept, without in any way limiting its scope, the following will keep to this preferred context of the invention, unless stated otherwise. In other words, this particular technique applies to the exchanges of messages between client objects and server objects, which objects can be distributed throughout the entire system.
2. Description of Related Art
As is well known, systems connected to one or more networks or subnetworks are grouped into domains.
In the past, the networks and the systems were dissociated, and each domain used its own mechanisms for naming and addressing entities as well as for routing information in the networks and systems.
Moreover, the mechanisms were not unified within the same network or system domain. A first simplification or streamlining occurred, with respect to networks, with the emergence of internet.
As for the systems themselves, the degree of streamlining is generally very low. However, there have been a few attempts at streamlining. For example, with respect to address directories, it is possible to use the access method known by the acronym “LDAP” (“Lightweight Directory Access Protocol”) and the architecture that conforms to the “X500” standard. In addition, services such as “DNS” (“Domain Name Server”) are beginning to be integrated into operating systems (“OS”) or into “middleware.” However, there is still a big difference between the “network” approach and the “system” approach.
In summary, it is clear that in the prior art, the systems, subsystems, services and software applications normally use specific solutions for the naming, addressing and routing of information. This situation is not without its drawbacks, and several of these will be discussed.
First of all, the multiplicity of solutions makes the process for configuring the components listed above very complex.
The configurations are normally static. However, as noted, there is a trend toward using directories of the “X500” type for the system objects: the users, the resources, the services and the applications. Nevertheless, the network objects, which are managed by the internet domain name servers (“DNS”), are still excluded and are not integrated with the system objects.
It follows that when a client interacts with a server, specific addressing and name resolution services are used. For example, naming services like those known by the name “CORBA” (defined by the “Object Management Group” consortium) may be cited. These services use very different mechanisms. Other services are known, for example the naming service of the “DCE” (“OSF” in a distributed environment), or of “TUXEDO” (distributed transaction service known in the “UNIX” environment, “TUXEDO” and “UNIX” being registered trademarks).
In general, clients that address a remote entity managed by a system, service or application invoke a name service. This requires the name of the network and the network address of the system that contains the entity to be reached.
The drawbacks inherent in these solutions are the following: a multiplicity of naming services, directories, and tables of correspondences between network and system addresses, the complexity of the configuration processes, and above all, the need for the client (or user) to know which system (i.e., which machine) contains the object addressed, or more generally, the entity addressed.
The processes according to the prior art therefore have numerous drawbacks. Furthermore, it may be added that they do not meet the current needs, or at least meet them inadequately. The most important needs are listed below.
First of all, as has been noted, the configuration is most often static. The current need is to move toward “zero administration,” based on an automatic and dynamic configuration.
A second need relates to portability. An object, or more generally an entity, belonging to a “DNS” domain must be able to migrate, i.e., to leave its domain, while remaining addressable as though it had stayed in its domain.
A third need, which goes hand-in-hand with the second, is that the servers must be independent from the host platforms. This setup allows unlimited migration.
A fourth need relates to security, in the broadest sense of this concept: authentication, access control, integrity and confidentiality of the exchanges. Generally, this is called the “AIC” concept—for “Availability—Integrity—Confidentiality.” These requirements must be met from end to end between, for example, the client object and the server object, i.e., a software entity, and not just during the passage through the network or networks, i.e., between physical machines.
A fifth need relates to the compatibility, or coexistence, between the various internet protocols, especially between the widely used “IPV4” version and the more recent “IPV6” version, this version being a subset of the “IPNG” (Internet Protocol New Generation”) standard currently being implemented.
However, it must be noted that an address conforming to the IPV
4
protocol has only four bytes, or 2
32
theoretical addresses, actually far fewer because of the structural hierarchy (particularly the presence of a prefix). Projections into the future have shown that, given the predictable growth of the Internet, a real shortage of addresses should occur during the period from 2005 to 2011. Also, since 1995, recommendations for the adoption of a new protocol, IPV
6
, have been published (“Internet Engineering Task Force” and “IPng” work groups). An address conforming to this IPV
6
protocol comprises sixteen bytes, which allows for a much larger address space,
Bull S.A.
Clinton Gregory
Kondracki Edward J.
Maung Zarni
Miles & Stockbridge P.C.
LandOfFree
Communication method in a set of distributed systems via an... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Communication method in a set of distributed systems via an..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Communication method in a set of distributed systems via an... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2979979