> On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net> 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 according to ECMP-aware SPF algorithm and instruct any > router in the path to ignore any possible local policy overriding > SPF decision. The SID advertised with "Strict Shortest Path" > algorithm ensures that the path the packet is going to take is the > expected, and not altered, SPF path. > > One example of a local policy that overrides the ECMP-aware SPF algorithm > decision is a limit > on the number of ECMP next-hops. The text above implies that if a router > places any > limit on the number of ECMP forwarding next-hops then it would be wrong for > it to advertise > the “Strict Shortest Path” algorithm capability. > > Is this the intended interpretation?
well, yes. Your example is a good one for the “strict-SPF” behavior. s. > > If not, what is the intended interpretation? > > Thanks, > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
