> 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 Iām 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. š /r _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
