Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!ateng!chip From: chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Active routing considered harmful Message-ID: <1988Sep6.122852.21618@ateng.uucp> Date: 6 Sep 88 16:28:51 GMT References: <4753@b-tech.UUCP> Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg) Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL Lines: 22 According to lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear): >Again, look at the havok that ihnp4 has caused those who do not actively >reroute. Actually, the demise of ihnp4 is an excellent example of the _danger_ of active routing. If I send mail though sites with active routers, my mail is at the mercy of the map data at _each_ of those sites. If their databases haven't had ihnp4 marked s DEAD, my message may bounce or disappear. "But wait," you may say, "active routers always have accurate map data!" Pshaw. It is to laugh. Nobody, even Rutgers, ever has completely correct maps. The UUCP "Network" is made up of a huge number of sites run by postmasters whose interest in being good net.citizens varies from heroic to zero. You'll never get accurate maps from everyone all at once. So, you active routers -- stop yelling "But my maps are accurate!" It's just not so. -- Chip Salzenberg or A T Engineering My employer may or may not agree with me. The urgent leaves no time for the important.