Agree, that could be the corner case, but how realistic would be to lose TCP sessions to RR, without some underlying physical problem, on more than one router, for example.
Regards On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:03:24PM +0200, Cydon Satyr wrote: > > So with this in mind, if all PE routers peer with ALL RR, why should RRs > > peer between themselves, IF none of RRs are in forwarding path? > > Double failures... one PE loosing a session to RR1 one PE loosing a > session to RR2. > > But that's fairly unlikely... > > gert > -- > USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW! > // > www.muc.de/~gert/ > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > [email protected] > fax: +49-89-35655025 > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
