[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7938 (5477)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 24 August 2018 09:02 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27E5130DF6 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 J2g_XWzhFWgN for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81410130D7A for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 356BBB80EE5; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: petr@fb.com, ariff@arista.com, jrmitche@puck.nether.net, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7938 (5477)
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: klemens.schragel@mailbox.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180824090202.356BBB80EE5@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 02:02:02 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/Mdfe6duhruqr802W0FTydECo7Q8>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:02:19 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7938, "Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5477 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Klemens Schragel <klemens.schragel@mailbox.org> Section: 3.2.3 Original Text ------------- The small example of topology in Figure 3 is built from devices with a port count of 4. In this document, one set of directly connected Tier 2 and Tier 3 devices along with their attached servers will be referred to as a "cluster". For example, DEV A, B, C, D, and the servers that connect to DEV A and B, on Figure 3 form a cluster. The concept of a cluster may also be a useful concept as a single deployment or maintenance unit that can be operated on at a different frequency than the entire topology. Corrected Text -------------- The small example of topology in Figure 3 is built from devices with a port count of 4. By introducing an additional Tier the 4-port Tier 1 device has still two unused ports to connect further devices, therefore scaling from a maximum of 8 servers in a 3-stage Clos to a maximum of 16 servers in this 5-stage Clos. In this document, one set of directly connected Tier 2 and Tier 3 devices along with their attached servers will be referred to as a "cluster". For example, DEV A, B, C, D, and the servers that connect to DEV A and B, on Figure 3 form a cluster. The concept of a cluster may also be a useful concept as a single deployment or maintenance unit that can be operated on at a different frequency than the entire topology. Notes ----- Section does not properly describe where the scaling happens, also the depicted topology still connects only 8 servers (the same amount as with a 3-stage Clos). The reader can grasp the scaling only when looking very carefully at the figure. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7938 (draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-11) -------------------------------------- Title : Use of BGP for Routing in Large-Scale Data Centers Publication Date : August 2016 Author(s) : P. Lapukhov, A. Premji, J. Mitchell, Ed. Category : INFORMATIONAL Source : Routing Area Working Group Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7938 (5477) RFC Errata System