Hi Geoff,

> I'm not sure I understand this Tony. What is in my mind when I read this is
> a counter case when a BGP speaker sees from a peer:
> advertise
> withdrawal
> advertise a dup of the previous advertisement
> withdrawal
> advertise a dup
> etc
> i.e. in this case the dups are not irrelevant, and in this case caching of
> previous
> validation outcomes would be beneficial.

This is a different case than what I think we were discussing.  At least if
I understand the situation, Lixia and crew were seeing:

Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)


rrg mailing list

Reply via email to