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: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:09 PM To: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com> Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; spring@ietf.org; Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 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 compute. Regards, Jeff On Sep 19, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) <sprev...@cisco.com<mailto:sprev...@cisco.com>> wrote: 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, at 12:17 PM, Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>> wrote: 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 good example when Strict SPF algorithm can be advertised". What do I miss? Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> -----Original Message----- From: spring [mailto:spring-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:43 PM To: Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net<mailto:cbow...@juniper.net>> Cc: spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [spring] meaning of "Strict Shortest Path" algorithm in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-09 On Sep 14, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Chris Bowers <cbow...@juniper.net<mailto: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<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org<mailto:spring@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
