



RIFT Working Group                                           J. D. Gomez
Internet-Draft                                               Independent
Intended status: Informational                             17 April 2026
Expires: 19 October 2026


  Operational Considerations for Multicast over RIFT-based Data Center
                                Fabrics
               draft-gomez-rift-multicast-operational-00

Abstract

   RIFT (Routing in Fat Trees) is increasingly used as an underlay
   routing protocol in modern data center fabrics.  However, RIFT does
   not natively define mechanisms for multicast traffic distribution.

   This document provides operational guidance and best practices for
   deploying multicast in RIFT-based data center fabrics.  It analyzes
   PIM, EVPN multicast, BIER, and head-end replication, highlighting
   trade-offs in scalability, efficiency, and operational complexity.

   This document does not define new protocol mechanisms.  It aims to
   assist network operators in making informed design decisions when
   deploying multicast services over RIFT-based fabrics.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 October 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Multicast Deployment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  Native RIFT Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Underlay Multicast using PIM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Overlay Multicast using EVPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.4.  BIER-based Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.5.  Head-End Replication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Operational Best Practices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Multicast Group Planning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.2.  RP Redundancy Strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.3.  Configuration Automation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.4.  Convergence Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Monitoring and Observability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Convergence Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  BUM Traffic Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.1.  Broadcast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.2.  Unknown Unicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.3.  Multicast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. Use Cases and Deployment Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.1.  Small Data Center (fewer than 100 Nodes) . . . . . . . .   8
     10.2.  Medium Data Center (100 to 500 Nodes)  . . . . . . . . .   8
     10.3.  Large Data Center (500 or More Nodes)  . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Multicast Traffic Not Reaching All VTEPs . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  RP Node High CPU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.3.  Slow Multicast Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.4.  Excessive Broadcast Traffic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Appendix A: Two-Level RIFT Fabric (Small/Medium DC) . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix B: PIM Multicast Tree Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11



Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   Appendix C: EVPN BUM Head-End Replication . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Appendix D: Large DC Multi-Level Topology . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

1.  Introduction

   Modern data center fabrics rely on Clos-based topologies to achieve
   scalability, high bandwidth, and fault tolerance.  RIFT [RFC9692]
   provides efficient unicast routing with topology awareness and Zero
   Touch Provisioning (ZTP).

   Multicast traffic remains relevant for telemetry distribution,
   financial data delivery, streaming, and EVPN-VXLAN BUM traffic
   handling.  However, RIFT does not define native multicast
   capabilities.

   Operators must rely on external mechanisms such as PIM [RFC4601],
   EVPN multicast [RFC7432], BIER [RFC8279], or head-end replication.
   This document provides guidance for selecting and operating these
   mechanisms in RIFT-based fabrics.

2.  Terminology

   The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, NOT RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
   [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals.

   RIFT Fabric:  A Clos or fat-tree data center network using RIFT as
      the underlay.

   Leaf Node:  A node connecting endpoints to the fabric.

   Spine Node:  A node interconnecting leaf nodes within the fabric.

   BUM Traffic:  Broadcast, Unknown Unicast, and Multicast traffic in
      EVPN-VXLAN.

   VTEP:  VXLAN Tunnel Endpoint.

   Head-End Replication (HER):  Ingress node replicates packets to each
      remote receiver via unicast.

   RP (Rendezvous Point):  PIM-SM node coordinating multicast group
      membership and tree construction.

   RPF (Reverse Path Forwarding):  Mechanism validating multicast packet
      ingress interface against the unicast routing table.



Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   KV-TIE:  Key-Value Topology Information Element.  RIFT mechanism for
      distributing key-value data within the fabric.

   ZTP:  Zero Touch Provisioning.  RIFT automatic node-level discovery
      and configuration.

3.  Applicability Statement

   This document applies to data center fabrics using RIFT [RFC9692] as
   the underlay routing protocol, specifically Clos and fat-tree
   topologies as described in [RFC9696].  It is not intended for
   general-purpose IP networks or WAN environments.

   Numerical values and thresholds presented in this document are
   illustrative and may vary by platform.  Operators SHOULD validate all
   thresholds against their platform documentation prior to production
   deployment.

4.  Problem Statement

   RIFT provides efficient unicast routing but does not define
   mechanisms for multicast group membership or tree construction.
   Existing solutions introduce the following trade-offs:

   *  PIM introduces control-plane complexity requiring RP placement
      design and specialized expertise.

   *  EVPN multicast increases signaling overhead and requires overlay-
      underlay coordination.

   *  Head-end replication does not scale efficiently; cost grows
      linearly with VTEP count.

   *  None of these approaches natively leverage RIFT topology awareness
      or KV-TIE distribution.

   There is no standardized operational guidance for multicast in RIFT-
   based fabrics.  This document addresses this gap.

5.  Multicast Deployment Models

   Operators should evaluate deployment models based on scale, platform
   support, and operational requirements.  Table 1 summarizes the trade-
   offs.







Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   +==============+========+================+===========+=============+
   | Model        | Config | Underlay Mcast | Scale     | Convergence |
   +==============+========+================+===========+=============+
   | RIFT Native  | Auto   | None           | Excellent | Excellent   |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
   | PIM          | Medium | Required       | Good      | 1-5 s       |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
   | EVPN / IR    | Low    | None           | Limited   | Good        |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
   | EVPN / Incl. | High   | Required       | Medium    | Moderate    |
   | Trees        |        |                |           |             |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
   | BIER         | Auto   | None           | Excellent | Sub-second  |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+
   | Head-End     | Low    | None           | Poor      | Good        |
   | Replication  |        |                |           |             |
   +--------------+--------+----------------+-----------+-------------+

                   Table 1: Deployment Model Comparison

5.1.  Native RIFT Multicast

   Work is ongoing [RIFT-MULTICAST] to define native RIFT multicast
   support.  Operators MAY consider this approach once standardized.  It
   is expected to provide automatic tree construction via ZTP and KV-
   TIEs.

5.2.  Underlay Multicast using PIM

   PIM MAY be deployed over a RIFT underlay.  The RP SHOULD be placed on
   spine nodes.  PIM BSR SHOULD be used for automatic RP advertisement.
   A dedicated multicast group range SHOULD be assigned for fabric use.
   Convergence is typically 1 to 5 seconds after failure.

5.3.  Overlay Multicast using EVPN

   EVPN multicast [RFC7432] MAY be used over a RIFT underlay.  Ingress
   Replication is RECOMMENDED for small deployments only (fewer than 100
   VTEPs).  Inclusive Multicast Trees scale better but require underlay
   multicast.  Operators SHOULD carefully plan VNI-to-multicast group
   mappings.

5.4.  BIER-based Multicast

   BIER [RFC8279] MAY be used as a multicast forwarding mechanism.
   [RFC9624] defines how BIER optimizes EVPN BUM forwarding.  BIER is
   stateless in intermediate nodes and provides sub-second convergence.
   Operators SHOULD evaluate BIER where platform support is available.



Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


5.5.  Head-End Replication

   Head-end replication MAY be used for simplicity.  It is RECOMMENDED
   only for small deployments (fewer than 50 VTEPs) and SHOULD NOT be
   used in large fabrics.

6.  Operational Best Practices

   The values presented are illustrative and may vary by platform.

6.1.  Multicast Group Planning

   A multicast group allocation policy SHOULD be established prior to
   deployment.  Each VNI SHOULD be mapped to a unique multicast group
   for EVPN BUM traffic.  All mappings SHOULD be documented centrally to
   prevent conflicts.

6.2.  RP Redundancy Strategies

   A primary RP and at least one backup RP SHOULD be configured on
   different spine nodes.  PIM Anycast-RP [RFC4610] or BSR-based
   redundancy MAY be used for automatic failover.

6.3.  Configuration Automation

   Operators SHOULD use configuration templates and automation
   frameworks for consistent configuration.  Manual per-node
   configuration is error-prone and does not scale beyond 100 nodes.

6.4.  Convergence Validation

   Before production deployment, operators SHOULD validate convergence
   by deliberately failing an RP or spine node and measuring traffic
   interruption duration.

7.  Monitoring and Observability

   Operators SHOULD monitor multicast traffic using platform telemetry.
   Table 2 provides recommended alert thresholds.  Values are
   illustrative.











Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   +=========================+===================+====================+
   | Metric                  | Alert Threshold   | Recommended Action |
   +=========================+===================+====================+
   | Active Multicast Groups | > 80% of HW limit | Add capacity /     |
   |                         |                   | optimize           |
   +-------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   | Active Sources          | Unexpected spike  | Investigate source |
   +-------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   | RP CPU Usage            | > 70%             | Add RP / rate-     |
   |                         |                   | limit              |
   +-------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   | BUM Traffic Volume      | > 150% of         | Check storm /      |
   |                         | baseline          | misconfig          |
   +-------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
   | PIM Join/Prune Rate     | Sustained high    | Check topology     |
   |                         | rate              | stability          |
   +-------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+

                Table 2: Key Multicast Monitoring Metrics

8.  Convergence Considerations

   Multicast convergence depends on underlay convergence time, protocol
   behavior, and control-plane load.  Some packet loss during
   convergence is expected.  Operators SHOULD use fast failure detection
   on PIM-enabled links.

       +===============+=================+===========+============+
       | Metric        | Small DC (<100) | Medium DC | Large DC   |
       |               |                 | (100-500) | (500+)     |
       +===============+=================+===========+============+
       | Max Multicast | ~1,000          | ~5,000    | ~50,000+   |
       | Groups        |                 |           |            |
       +---------------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
       | Recommended   | 1               | 2-3       | 4-6        |
       | RPs           |                 |           |            |
       +---------------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
       | Convergence   | < 1 second      | 1-5       | 5-10       |
       | Target        |                 | seconds   | seconds    |
       +---------------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
       | Recommended   | HER / PIM       | Inclusive | BIER /     |
       | BUM Model     |                 | Trees     | Dist.  RPs |
       +---------------+-----------------+-----------+------------+
       | HW Threshold  | 80% of 4K       | 80% of    | 80% of     |
       | Alert         |                 | 16K       | 64K+       |
       +---------------+-----------------+-----------+------------+

             Table 3: Scalability and Convergence Guidelines



Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


9.  BUM Traffic Handling

9.1.  Broadcast Traffic

   EVPN ARP suppression SHOULD be enabled on all leaf nodes.  DHCP relay
   SHOULD be configured on leaf nodes.  Broadcast rate limiting SHOULD
   be configured to prevent storm propagation.

9.2.  Unknown Unicast

   Leaf nodes SHOULD properly learn and advertise MAC addresses via EVPN
   Type 2 routes.  Unknown unicast rates per VNI SHOULD be monitored.
   Unknown unicast suppression SHOULD be enabled where supported.

9.3.  Multicast Traffic

   IGMP snooping SHOULD be enabled on all leaf nodes.  An IGMP querier
   SHOULD be designated per broadcast domain.  For IPv6 segments, MLD
   snooping and an MLD querier SHOULD be configured.

10.  Use Cases and Deployment Examples

10.1.  Small Data Center (fewer than 100 Nodes)

   A small RIFT fabric (2-4 spines, 10-50 leaves) prioritizes
   simplicity.  RIFT ZTP SHOULD be deployed.  EVPN with Head-End
   Replication is RECOMMENDED for BUM.  If native multicast is required,
   a single RP on one spine node is sufficient.  ARP suppression SHOULD
   be enabled on all leaves.

10.2.  Medium Data Center (100 to 500 Nodes)

   A medium RIFT fabric (10-30 spines, 100-300 leaves) requires
   scalability and redundancy.  Operators SHOULD deploy 2-3 RPs on
   different spine nodes with PIM BSR.  EVPN inclusive multicast trees
   are RECOMMENDED over head-end replication.  Separate multicast group
   ranges SHOULD be assigned for infrastructure and application traffic.

10.3.  Large Data Center (500 or More Nodes)

   A large RIFT fabric (50+ spines, 500+ leaves) requires high
   efficiency.  BIER [RFC8279] [RFC9624] is RECOMMENDED where platform
   support is available.  If BIER is unavailable, 4-6 distributed RPs
   with PIM Anycast-RP [RFC4610] SHOULD be deployed.  Regional multicast
   domains SHOULD limit state propagation.






Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


11.  Troubleshooting

   Diagnostic procedures vary by platform.  Operators SHOULD consult
   platform documentation for specific commands and tools.

11.1.  Multicast Traffic Not Reaching All VTEPs

   Possible causes: incorrect IGMP/MLD group membership on leaf nodes;
   EVPN IMET routes not advertised; RPF check failing due to asymmetric
   routing.  Steps: verify group membership state; verify EVPN IMET
   route advertisement; check RPF path; confirm RIFT unicast convergence
   is complete.

11.2.  RP Node High CPU

   Possible causes: excessive PIM Register messages; (S,G) state
   approaching platform limits.  Steps: examine PIM message rates on the
   RP; check active multicast state count; consider additional RPs or
   BIER migration.

11.3.  Slow Multicast Convergence

   Possible causes: PIM waiting for RIFT unicast convergence; slow
   backup RP detection; fast failure detection not configured.  Steps:
   measure RIFT convergence time independently; verify fast failure
   detection on PIM links; test RP failover in a lab.

11.4.  Excessive Broadcast Traffic

   Possible causes: ARP suppression not enabled; host generating
   broadcast storm; MAC learning failures.  Steps: verify ARP
   suppression per VNI; monitor per-interface broadcast counters;
   identify source via MAC address tables; inspect offending host.

12.  Security Considerations

   Multicast deployments MAY introduce flooding, amplification, and
   unauthorized group access risks.  Operators SHOULD enable RPF
   checking; use SSM with IGMPv3 where possible; filter 224.0.0.0/24 at
   fabric boundaries (this range MUST NOT be routed across the fabric);
   configure per-source rate limits; and apply control-plane policing on
   RP nodes.

13.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

14.  References



Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


14.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9692]  Przygienda, T., Ed., Head, J., Ed., Sharma, A., and B.
              Rijsman, "RIFT: Routing in Fat Trees", RFC 9692,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9692, April 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9692>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4601]  Fenner, B., Ed., "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse
              Mode (PIM-SM)", RFC 4601, DOI 10.17487/RFC4601, August
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4601>.

   [RFC4610]  Farinacci, D. and Y. Cai, "Anycast-RP Using Protocol
              Independent Multicast (PIM)", RFC 4610,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4610, August 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4610>.

   [RFC7432]  Sajassi, A., Ed., "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, I. J., Ed. and E. Rosen, Ed., "Multicast Using
              Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8365]  Sajassi, A., Ed., "A Network Virtualization Overlay
              Solution Using Ethernet VPN (EVPN)", RFC 8365,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8365, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8365>.

   [RFC9251]  Sajassi, A., Ed., "IGMP and MLD Proxies for Ethernet VPN
              (EVPN)", RFC 9251, DOI 10.17487/RFC9251, June 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9251>.







Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


   [RFC9624]  Zhang, Z., Przygienda, T., and A. Sajassi, "EVPN BUM Using
              Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 9624,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9624, August 2024,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9624>.

   [RFC9696]  Przygienda, T., Ed., "RIFT: Applicability and Operational
              Considerations", RFC 9696, DOI 10.17487/RFC9696, April
              2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9696>.

   [RIFT-MULTICAST]
              Zhang, Z., "Multicast Routing In Fat Trees", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-zzhang-rift-multicast,
              April 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
              zzhang-rift-multicast/>.

Appendix A: Two-Level RIFT Fabric (Small/Medium DC)

                          Level 1 (Spine)
                  +------------+    +------------+
                  |  Spine-1   |    |  Spine-2   |
                  +------------+    +------------+
                   /    |    \      /    |    \
                  /     |     \    /     |     \
                Level 0 (Leaf)
                +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
                | Leaf-1 | | Leaf-2 | | Leaf-3 | | Leaf-4 |
                +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
                   | |        | |        | |        | |
                  VMs VMs   VMs VMs    VMs VMs    VMs VMs

                      Figure 1: Two-Level RIFT Fabric

Appendix B: PIM Multicast Tree Example

                    Source (Leaf-1)
                         |
                         v
                   +----------+
                   | Spine-1  |  <-- Rendezvous Point (RP)
                   +----------+
                    /    |    \
                   v     v     v
                 +------+ +------+ +------+
                 |Leaf-2| |Leaf-3| |Leaf-4|
                 +------+ +------+ +------+

               Figure 2: PIM Multicast Tree in a RIFT Fabric




Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             Multicast over RIFT                April 2026


Appendix C: EVPN BUM Head-End Replication

                     Ingress VTEP
                     +--------+
                     | Leaf-1 |
                     +--------+
                      /   |   \  (unicast VXLAN copies)
                     v    v    v
                   +------+ +------+ +------+
                   |Leaf-2| |Leaf-3| |Leaf-4|
                   |(VTEP)| |(VTEP)| |(VTEP)|
                   +------+ +------+ +------+

                  Figure 3: EVPN BUM Head-End Replication

Appendix D: Large DC Multi-Level Topology

                        Level 2 (Super-Spine)
                +-----------+  +-----------+  +-----------+
                | S-Spine-1 |  | S-Spine-2 |  | S-Spine-3 |
                +-----------+  +-----------+  +-----------+
                  Level 1 (Spine) -- Multiple RP regions
                +------+ +------+  +------+ +------+
                |Sp-1  | |Sp-2  |  |Sp-3  | |Sp-4  |  ...
                |(RP-A)| |(RP-B)|  |(RP-C)| |(RP-D)|
                +------+ +------+  +------+ +------+
                  Level 0 (Leaf)
                +--++--+ +--++--+  +--++--+ +--++--+
                |L1||L2| |L3||L4|  |L5||L6| |L7||L8| ...
                +--++--+ +--++--+  +--++--+ +--++--+

                Figure 4: Three-Level RIFT Fabric (Large DC)

Author's Address

   Jesus David Gomez Zavala
   Independent
   Email: jesusdavid.ieft@gmail.com













Gomez                    Expires 19 October 2026               [Page 12]
