Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!think!ames!eos!labrea!agate!ucbvax!LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!philipp
From: philipp@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (Philip Prindeville [CC])
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Dumb vs. smart host routing
Message-ID: <8805131920.AA12490@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Date: 13 May 88 19:20:35 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25


    Date: Thu 12 May 88 14:38:09-EDT
    From: John Romkey <ROMKEY@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
    Subject: Re:  Dumb vs. smart host routing
    To: jqj@hogg.cc.uoregon.edu
    Cc: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
    
    [ ... ]
    I envision networks where links to other networks come and go, but not the
    actual routers themselves. It's a strange idea to me. I don't see any
    application for it off the top of my head.

On our network, which is fairly real-worldish, we have a uVAX-II with
very flakey dequna board.  It panics several times a day, leaving us with
an alternative route but no way to know about it.  Your vision could be
a little broader, without going over your head. :-)
    
    [ ... ]
    of one default router; I'd like to increase it to an arbitrary list of them
    which is cycled through for reliability. If you have only one default router

Won't this affect your TCP RTT and cause some sort of oscillation (or force
you to bind connections to routes)?

-Philip