Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!amdahl!tron From: tron@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 88 06:58:51 GMT References: <4902@netnews.upenn.edu> <965@vsi1.UUCP> <6392@chinet.UUCP> Reply-To: tron@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ronald S. Karr) Organization: Amdahl Coup, UTS Products Hen house Lines: 25 In article <6392@chinet.UUCP> les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >But if you have a map entry for b showing that it talks to your site >and c, and you have a map entry for c showing that it talks to b, do >you not then know that the c in your map entry is the same c that >b is going to forward to? Of course it is possible to lie both in the >map entries and in a uucp conversation, but then you deserve to lose... In this specific case, you probably know that the two c's are the same. Now if you can get this information into your mailer then you are doing something that is a substantial improvement over the current state-of- the-art in active rerouting. Current mailers do not look at map data, they look at path data produced from this map data. A reasonable implementation of your strategy would require the mailer to step through the map data and find an optimal solution for each path. This is very expensive (in CPU and disk) relative to the present solution where pathalias produces an "optimal" solution for each host. I suspect there are special cases, though, that are not as expensive. Although your strategy would be a big improvement, that doesn't necessarily make it correct. -- tron |-<=>-| ARPAnet: amdahl!tron@Sun.COM tron@uts.amdahl.com UUCPnet: {decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tron [views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]