IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Rift] comments on draft-przygienda-rift-dragonfly-00

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Fri, 27 October 2023 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@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 0BD57C14CE54 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 02:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ebiNnLJVWc_J for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 02:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E08FCC151549 for <rift@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 02:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SGyMS2bbrz4xPYg; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:40:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app05.zte.com.cn ([10.55.22.121]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 39R9eNIq034743; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:40:24 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:40:26 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:40:26 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9653b858a32f-3c4c4
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202310271740269533158@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: prz@juniper.net
Cc: rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 39R9eNIq034743
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 653B8594.000/4SGyMS2bbrz4xPYg
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/nalSrsjoanZwzD4M2SV4UVT5YIA>
Subject: [Rift] comments on draft-przygienda-rift-dragonfly-00
X-BeenThere: rift@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 09:40:41 -0000

Hi Tony, 
Thank you for providing this draft! 
IMO it's an interesting topic that using RIFT in dragonfly or dragonfly+ topology. 
Could you please post the draft figures here for reading the draft easily?
And will you consider using east-west connection between the TOFs? 
Though it will change the flooding and computation procedure in RIFT protocol, we think it may be another feasible way. 
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Sandy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email