Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt

wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn Wed, 21 October 2020 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5072B3A14D0; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 02:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TTd45E-umtGO; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 02:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxde.zte.com.cn (mxde.zte.com.cn [209.9.37.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224AE3A14CE; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 02:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-eu.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.35.13.51]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id AE1EDB8D28AA8A987C60; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:34:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dgapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.35.13.16]) by mse-eu.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 09L9XnRP003499; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:33:49 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (dgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid1; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:33:52 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:33:52 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95f900080869c09c5
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202010211733520182246@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CALxNLBgxR76ofsRNL_xcsHXVRtTDAG81Dw0m_nvxQApuHRmrLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: CALxNLBiMdJMBk9+VTTsLy7x7OnBA9iCYahTaux5STYwp366Pdg@mail.gmail.com, CALxNLBgxR76ofsRNL_xcsHXVRtTDAG81Dw0m_nvxQApuHRmrLw@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
To: melchior@aelmans.eu
Cc: draft-wei-rift-applicability@ietf.org, rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-eu.zte.com.cn 09L9XnRP003499
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/EB2lp3jWeI-7UIBVYkswMDnZ2W4>
Subject: Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of Routing in Fat Trees <rift.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rift/>
List-Post: <mailto:rift@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift>, <mailto:rift-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:34:17 -0000

Hi Melchior,


Thank you! Please find my comments inline start with "Wei>>>>"






Best Regards,



Yuehua Wei


ZTE Corporation





南京市软件大道50号/No.50, Software Avenue, Nanjing, 210012, P. R. China


M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn













原始邮件



发件人:MelchiorAelmans
收件人:魏月华00019655;
抄送人:draft-wei-rift-applicability@ietf.org;rift@ietf.org;
日 期 :2020年10月16日 04:08
主 题 :Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt



Thanks for taking into account my suggestions.

I'm rereading the draft again and section 4.10 "Dual Homing Servers" doesn't really make it clear to me what the benefits are for dual homing servers to a RIFT fabric.

First, in this specific section you start using Spine and ToR to refer to this level where in other places in the draft you only refer to this as Spine. For easier reading I would suggest picking Spine.
Wei>>>> I am using ToR1&ToR2 and SV(1, ...,n) to describe an example of a fat-tree structure in a data center scenario for a more intuitive understanding. The SVs are leaves.Second, although I agree that the loss of a Spine results in more specifics would they in this example hit the server? From the server perspective the default still points to the Leaf. The Leaf would indeed need to have more specifics in order to avoid the blakhole at Spine level but I'm not sure they are propagated to the servers.
Wei>>>> In this figure, the SVs are leaves.Also, it might be interesting to emphasize little more on the advantages of multi-homing servers to a RIFT fabric especially when they partake in RIFT; the avoidance of L2 in between Leaf and server, easier IP mobility, etc.

Looking forward to hearing what you think.

If you are interested I'm willing to (re)write something for this section.
Wei>>>>comments are welcome.




Cheers,
Melchior



On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 10:58 AM <wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn> wrote:


Hi


Will reflect the correction to version -03.


Thank you so much!














Best Regards,



Yuehua Wei


ZTE Corporation





南京市软件大道50号/No.50, Software Avenue, Nanjing, 210012, P. R. China


M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn



















原始邮件


发件人:MelchiorAelmans
收件人:draft-wei-rift-applicability@ietf.org;
抄送人:rift@ietf.org;
日 期 :2020年10月12日 21:38
主 题 :Re: [Rift] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt

_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
RIFT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift


Hi,

I don't believe the below was corrected in the -02 version as it still reads "more a specific" instead of "a more specific".

Cheers,
Melchior



On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 9:37 PM Melchior Aelmans <melchior@aelmans.eu> wrote:


Dear authors,

I've spotted a small typo in section 4.6. Positive vs. Negative Disaggregation:

Disaggregation is the procedure whereby [RIFT] advertises more a specific route Southwards as an exception to the aggregated fabric-default North.



I think you are trying to say "advertises a more sepcific".


Cheers,

Melchior


On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:54 AM <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Routing In Fat Trees WG of the IETF.

        Title           : RIFT Applicability
        Authors         : Yuehua Wei
                          Zheng Zhang
                          Dmitry Afanasiev
                          Tom Verhaeg
                          Jaroslaw Kowalczyk
                          Pascal Thubert
        Filename        : draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01.txt
        Pages           : 29
        Date            : 2020-04-03

Abstract:
   This document discusses the properties, applicability and operational
   considerations of RIFT in different network scenarios.  It intends to
   provide a rough guide how RIFT can be deployed to simplify routing
   operations in Clos topologies and their variations.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rift-applicability/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rift-applicability-01


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/


_______________________________________________
RIFT mailing list
RIFT@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rift