RE: [Rift] kicking off the charter discussion

<> Thu, 11 January 2018 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB8E120713; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TdLsqSQ2f6cp; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B1D2120454; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g191so389773ywe.7; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:23:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=/Zxdb5szoVAgwl5qKdrV4XzwlfhNPkoKronBI7kJOUE=; b=k1+inkoSn9IjnPelDFIliTo/uz/jLwFwu/T36hnTIYYvHxjhX3Kporqr6n9miJM+UK ipH/NicFBJAZUxNwcNwae5cvnMbZb9RabW2YXXbj9dYJc46f1IxujJNTCBjSTY5MU/DS D8ANa4njl2y3330YaqNIJrcVgZCOu9uek2lcFV4GiEbK+YK9AvZrBrwedisy0RVhI62d 7o+0vGL5XONVkhAUiS3S8xaBR2OSQc2nAmsAHeh9vSrKqq/is3Z4i3i0XUzpSuz7+k6U /wxdS2kVBEWRMK2BcN6gbIKblDG/bacH4yZV6TDELTKLk4dm8uhYk+TEUENFDX4rcFid /+Mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=/Zxdb5szoVAgwl5qKdrV4XzwlfhNPkoKronBI7kJOUE=; b=daiOpA6uwbHmG6MepVWQHGhqu1KJLEjqXAZQ5zTYy0O4UWbUhHP9+lyDNewSN1liXK rLes2GZk12kgVzP6pOZvAe8h4/U+SlEblV04DoWur82bSpXY9CsK8jGKTb3kTxEaT4Ai vWMLC8zjOdkna8zig/zMVTYVUlpt6cP8Rna7s5y20AYY4W0HTAQjuuv+oZp4O2TsnsAP M1SoLFkOiZuFUen4AO33zsdxEkxtxQSWyVzUXYGhJLpAccyj6zMCTFbMob2gacQujQAB //+r2rghNEyzHobGRs0aOXQrvAaA0zLJ3YTl058Lk9eMz+EroEkHcFyAP5sDLznLWFTm lOQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf5GjYSXevSl0O6CcQU6uSSoIian32+3YVIq4chtu8eqbOhRGZh IOQstCH6zzfVBX5GCTMVb4c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotysyR0J6r6gC2gu8Nw3PSVDqrEouaXGRiseWs+GmPGzJmlDDvD+icZx3JgZTvvL8mg5yHc+w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id v9mr3285722ywa.241.1515633779832; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Russ ([2600:1700:720:1050:9091:85f3:6472:de3d]) by with ESMTPSA id h21sm7680180ywk.43.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:22:59 -0800 (PST)
From: <>
To: "'Alvaro Retana'" <>, <>, <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: [Rift] kicking off the charter discussion
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 20:22:58 -0500
Message-ID: <02e901d38a7a$b761a7b0$2624f710$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQMzL2uhu7Viq2qc1OoXva7zQ+HgrqCulRzg
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:23:02 -0000

> 	The Routing in Fat Trees (RIFT) protocol addresses the demands of
> routing in Clos and Fat-Tree networks via a mixture of both link-state and

I would tend to say "spine and leaf" here, rather than Clod -- Clos is one instance of a spine and leaf, but there are others.
> 	- minimize the amount of routing state held at each topology level,

It is probably useful to indicate both topology and reachability state here, as they are two different things.

> 	- allow traffic steering and re-routing policies,

This might be a little underspecified ... I think this should probably include "using metrics and policy carried within the RIFT control plane." You can always hijack a path using PCEP or something else, so the requirement, as stated, just feels a little "weak."

> 	It is important that nodes participating in the protocol should need only
> very light configuration and should be able to join a network as leaf nodes
> simply by connecting to the network using default configuration.

"very light" might be better as "minimal?" It would be nice to have something with a more definite meaning here, but Iā€™m not certain what.

> 	The protocol must support IPv6 and should also support IPv4.

In terms of carrying reachability for, or in terms of running on top of? Two different things.

šŸ˜Š /r