[c-nsp] cisco-nsp Digest, Vol 137, Issue 10

[Andrew Clark]

The problem is, when will it not be true?  
Or put another way, why not peer the RRs?

I went down the same path in a different deployment, thinking that's it is hard to imagine of a failure that won't take down connectivity to both RRs. But I can now think of one:  in a DMVPN deployment, some of the far end modems misbehaved in regards to passing ISAKMP and you'd lose one of the two tunnels (one to each RR/hub).  That is different from your scenario, in that the RRs were in the forwarding path. But it highlights the fact that it's very very hard to predict all the ways in which a network can break. 

Andrew

> On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:56 AM, cisco-nsp-request at puck.nether.net wrote:
> 
> Taking in consideration that all edge routers peer with all RR (which I
> forgot to mention in original post) AND none of them are in the forwarding
> path, THEN:
> 
> 1) RR should not peer with each other