Hi Stephane,
this version hopefully addresses your comments. Let me know if there’s anything
that still needs to be addressed.
Thanks.
s.
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 7:39 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Source Packet Routing in Networking of the
IETF.
Title : Use-cases for Resiliency in SPRING
Authors : Clarence Filsfils
Ste
Stefano,
I think life would be simpler if you could provide a meaningful example of
behavior that is "SPF" (defined as the default algorithm) but not "Strict SPF".
IMHO and FWIW Chris has tried to make such an example, but it does not look as
valid to some people (me included).
Without any su
Chris, Jeff, Alex,
strict-SPF behavior has been intended as the forwarding of the packet according
to spf, without any form of policy.
It is true that ecmp is a matter of local implementation so we could extend the
behavior description to:
forwarding of the packet according to spf,
Jeff,
I fully agree with what you say: from my POV restrictions on the number of ECMP
next hops do not make an SPF less strict.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Mon
Number if ECMP paths is an implementation subject and would differ from
platform to platform. The way subset of ECMP paths is chosen is local to the
implementation.
If you limit number of paths/size of ECMP bundle - it doesn't make it less
SPF-strict as long as SPF(Dijkstra) has been applied to
sorry. What I meant is that if you restrict the number of ecmp path you have
computed, it is not what the definition of strict-spf is.
IOW, strict-spf means that you forward according to what SPF algorithm has
computed without applying any sort of constraint/policy/hack.
s.
> On Sep 19, 2016,
Stefano, Chris and all,
I have to admit that I am completely confused:
- to the best of my understanding, Chris has asked whether a policy
that puts a limit on max. number of ECMP next hops is not compatible with the
Strict SPF algorithm
- Stefano says that "Yes, this policy is a
> On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers wrote:
>
> SPRING WG,
>
> The current text in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 regarding the
> "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm reads as follows.
>
>o "Strict Shortest Path": This algorithm mandates that the packet is
> forwarded
