Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!umix!b-tech!zeeff
From: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Mail survey #1
Message-ID: <4753@b-tech.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 88 17:56:21 GMT
References: <4740@b-tech.UUCP> <4747@b-tech.UUCP> <4748@b-tech.UUCP> <3703@rayssd.ray.com> <4750@b-tech.UUCP> <3710@rayssd.ray.com>
Reply-To: zeeff@b-tech.UUCP (Jon Zeeff)
Organization: Branch Technology Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 58

In article <3710@rayssd.ray.com> gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes:
>In reply to my observation that active rerouters using pathalias data
>have no effect on mail routed using pathalias (thus marking links as
>DEAD has no beneficial effect), in article <4750@b-tech.UUCP> zeeff@b-tech
>(Jon Zeeff) writes:
>
>> Mail that was completely routed by up to date, consistent pathalias 
>> data has never been a problem.  One problem is created when a site 
>> thinks that it has better map info than the originating site.  Marking 
>> links as DEAD avoids these sites and this problem.  Another problem 
>
>I take from this that you are saying that it is OK to actively reroute
>as long as you use up to date, consistent pathalias data.  I don't see
>where your poll came to that conclusion.  In fact, I'd say that you are
>DEAD (pun) wrong here, as most complaints on this subject have been
>about rutgers, which supposedly has the most up to date pathalias info
>of any site.

Yes, as long as you pick the exact same route I did you can reroute my 
mail all you want :-).  

Read carefully what I said - "mail that was completely routed by up to 
date, consistent pathalias data ...".  

In other words, if you can prove 1) that I used only pathalias to 
route my mail and 2) that you have the same map data, then yes, you 
should feel free to "reroute" it, because you are going to come up 
with exactly the same path I did.  Of course no site can prove either 
of these things, which is why your observation in the first paragraph 
is incorrect (rerouters often do change routes that were created with
pathalias - their map data differs).  

Rutgers will never have all of the most up to date map information.  
Local changes are known by local sites first - it seems to take 
rutgers awhile to get changes incorporated into the map data.  

>
>The results of your poll were interesting, but I still don't think your
>conclusion that active rerouters should mark all links as DEAD makes
>sense. 

I guess I can only tell you to talk to others who manually mark rutgers
links as DEAD.  It does help.

>I also wonder what kind of enforcement mechanism you are going
>to back up this directive (suggestion?, plea?) with.  Site admins that
>reroute probably do it for what they think are good reasos.  What's
>going to make them do what you and/or the majority want them to do?

I don't know.  How would any site be handled if it advertised
many low cost links and then screwed up the mail it received?

Maybe a # line in the maps data marking these sites would do it.


-- 
Jon Zeeff      			Branch Technology,
umix!b-tech!zeeff  		zeeff%b-tech.uucp@umix.cc.umich.edu