On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:43 PM, David Blevins wrote: > If I understand correctly, then right on all points. > > To recap for possible doc benefit, sounds like this is the setup. > > client -> server1 -> server2 -> server3 > > That should definitely work, but the start order would have to be the exact > opposite: > > server3, server2, server1, client
The start order would not need to be "exactly" that strict, correct? servers 1, 2, and 3 could be started in any order. And even if client was already connected to server1, client could eventually learn of all potential servers... --kevan
