RE: SE-IPSP definition

Brian,
....

> > 
> > Reading this thread the problem I see with SE procedures was
> > identified in a mail where Brian said:
> > >If you want both IPSPs to each have an AS an traffic mode, 
> use DE instead
> > of SE.
> > Thus I understand there are situations where SE mode cannot be
> > used. This is not clear in RFC.
> 
> No, there are not situations where SE mode cannot be used.  What I was
> saying was that if one pedantically requies that both peers have and
> exchange a traffic mode (which they don't need in the first 
> place) that
> one should use the DE mode.
> 
> SE can work quite fine in all situations with one side not 
> having an ASP
> traffic mode.  No change is required.
> 

So you agree that it does not work so well when both ASs have a redundant 
architecture - loadshare or override?
I don't understand why you refer to this as a pedantic requirement - it is
an architectural/implementation robustness requirement in some situations.


Pete