[Rift] [RIFT][Non equal cost anycast]

<xu.benchong@zte.com.cn> Fri, 26 July 2019 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rift@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA471202FA for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sX7GEVFkLnqx for <rift@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn []) (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 3AA531202F7 for <rift@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 02:57:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id CAA05ADE3B2D065F18C1; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:42:55 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 4CB60FA635C62D296BFE; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:38:05 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id x6Q9btZl083543; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:37:55 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xu.benchong@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:37:51 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 17:37:51 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95d3ac9ef27ed9ef2
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201907261737515797054@zte.com.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <xu.benchong@zte.com.cn>
To: <prz@juniper.net>, <rift@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn x6Q9btZl083543
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rift/zmq4D-84w-sKuDyu3U6g3B-zz2E>
Subject: [Rift] =?utf-8?q?=5BRIFT=5D=5BNon_equal_cost_anycast=5D?=
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: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:57:25 -0000


Can you talk about REQ6, How does RIFT support it? Is it benefiting from the default route?

"  REQ6:    Non equal cost anycast must be supported to allow for easy

            and robust multi-homing of services without regressing to

            careful balancing of link costs."

Thank you!