Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!honey
From: honey@umix.cc.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Dynamic vs. passive routing: site rights
Message-ID: <4534@umix.cc.umich.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 88 04:56:54 GMT
References: <22788@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: honey@citi.umich.edu (Peter Honeyman)
Organization: Center for Information Technology Integration, Univ of Michigan
Lines: 12
UUCP-Path: {uunet,rutgers}!umix!honey

indeed, rob, your suggestion led to pathparse.  (did i ever thank you?
i'm sure i did.)  furthermore, i did implement it.  the paper describes
the idea and the performance of pathparse.

it turns out to be unnecessary to limit the depth.  each additional
host in the path incurs one more disk access.  (i believe this is how
dbm works, but i'm not positive.)  

building the database from the map files turns out to be a big pain --
an hour on a 750 -- so i no longer use pathparse, although i did for
about a year.

	peter