[Rift] 4 questions（draft-przygienda-rift-dragonfly-00)
wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn Thu, 02 November 2023 08:53 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 77246C1519A6 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 01:53:13 -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 SXtbQF-RJk_0 for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 01:53:08 -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 8F49AC1519A4 for <rift@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 01:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (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 4SLd1p0Ytqz4xPG0; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:53:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxlzmapp07.zte.com.cn ([10.5.230.251]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3A28qswN095355; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:52:54 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (szxlzmapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid13; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 16:52:57 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 16:52:57 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b0765436369ffffffffe55-abbca
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202311021652570981372@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
To: prz@juniper.net, rift@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3A28qswN095355
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6543636E.000/4SLd1p0Ytqz4xPG0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/rbh5uI1apVJGXq0RUrHwMjVICSE>
Subject: [Rift] 4 questions（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: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 08:53:13 -0000
Hi, tony When I read the draft, I got 4 questions. I appreciate your clarification. 1) In 1. Introduction "We can see that it is nothing else but a multi-plane CLOS with a lot of broken links for standard RIFT." Does broken links means: direct links between LB1 and SA1/SA2/SC1/SC2，direct links between LB2 and SA1/SA2/SC1/SC2 and so on？ In figure 1, totally 24 broken links? 2) In figure 2, is Fabric A a PoD, or LA2 and LA1 form a PoD, or PoD is not applicable to Figure2? 3) If we look at Figure 3, there are 2 PoDs each for Fabric A and Fabric B? 4) 4.1. Additional Bi-Sectional Bandwidth Route Computation Chang Does this draft limits the sparse DF+ topology to only 2 links coming out of one ToF ? Is tri-sectional possible for sparse DF+ if I have more than 3 fabrics? Thanks Best Regards, Yuehua Wei M: +86 13851460269 E: wei.yuehua@zte.com.cn
- [Rift] 4 questions（draft-przygienda-rift-dragonfl… wei.yuehua
- Re: [Rift] 4 questions（draft-przygienda-rift-drag… Antoni Przygienda