On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 9:02 PM <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > Hi Gyan, > > I think with clos spine leaf the mesh is much more intensive and > problematic with ECMP then a circular topology nodal mesh that results in > duplicate redundant flooding that slows down convergence. With spine leaf > it’s like an X horizontal width axis and then depth is spine to leaf > links. With spine leaf as you grow sideways and the spine expand the > redundant ECMP grows and redundant flooding grows exponentially and is much > worse then circular nodal mesh. > > > One very nice thing about dynamic flooding is that it computes a flooding > topology at the node level. If the adjacency between A and B is on the > flooding topology, then any single link between them may be used for > flooding. If you have 128 way parallel links, this is an immediate 128x > improvement in flooding overhead. What’s more, A and B do not need to > agree on which link they are using and can use different links, resulting > in an asymmetric situation, without any loss of correctness or performance. >
Gyan>. Agreed. The dynamic flooding really helps with X way ECMP prevalent in high density data center clos multi tier leaf spine parial mesh topologies that scale massive bandwidth breadth wise horizontally for E-W flows. > > Regards, > Tony > > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
