Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!linc.cis.upenn.edu!brant
From: brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Brant Cheikes)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights
Message-ID: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 25 Aug 88 17:24:37 GMT
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: brant@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Brant Cheikes)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 27

I've been following the "dynamic vs. passive" rerouting debate, and
one concern that I haven't seen adequately addressed by those opposing
dynamic routing is: who has the right to determine how a given
machine's resources are used?

One person's rule tells us that machines should respect explicit bang
paths, only rerouting when the next hop is not a neighbor.  The effect
of this rule for a given host may be higher phone bills.  Suppose
machine A has a cheap link to B and an expensive link to C.  If mail
comes to A, with next-hop listed as C, and A can determine that link B
could be used instead (dynamic routing), then doesn't A have the right
to change the route?  Or must A use the more expensive route it was
given, just because someone else decided it was "better" BY THEIR
DEFINITION.

My question for those who would abolish dynamic routing, is: do you
assume the right to dictate how my machine's resources will be used?

When arguing this point remember that there are still many sites that
do not use smart mailers, that hand-generated paths are still
commonplace, and that sites are allowed to maintain unpublished
connectivity data.  Though I have been bitten by dynamic routing on
several occasions, I can see why some sites (especially big ones) may
consider it necessary.
--
Brant Cheikes
University of Pennsylvania
Department of Computer and Information Science