Tiger,
> On Sep 17, 2026, at 21:50, Tiger Xu <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Tiger] Your observation is also correct. As I mentioned previously on the > mailing list, the existing link-bandwidth attribute works fine for > three-stage CLOS networks by using the “math” logic originally described in > the FARE draft. Of course, the DMZ use case draft has recently added the same > “math” logic. However, for five-stage CLOS networks, it becomes very > difficult to leverage the existing link-bandwidth attribute to achieve the > “math” logic and therefore the expected WECMP result described in the FARE > draft. In fact, some network vendors have attempted to reuse the existing > link-bandwidth attribute for five-stage CLOS networks but ultimately failed. > Not only does this approach require operators to reconfigure the policy when > the number of links between switches is adjusted during network capacity > changes, but it is also incapable of achieving the expected WECMP result. Simple policy will have issues with the math when only done from configuration. Some implementations provide the ability to do the math based on state in the BGP speaker such as the number of peers that are up. As an example, consider the HPE Juniper "aggregate-bandiwdth divide-equal" feature. However, this example feature is only a partial overlap for some of the discussion, especially in circumstances where "minimum" is desired. However, it does illustrate that the math can leverage local state outside of simply configuration or route candidates. > [Tiger] Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the upcoming IETF meeting > due to a US visa issue. Thank you again for your professional and > constructive comments and suggestions. Perhaps you will consider remote presentation? -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
