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: Withdrawl Advertise Advertise (dup) Advertise (dup) Advertise (dup) Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
