Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!k.cc.purdue.edu!l.cc.purdue.edu!cik From: cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Active routing considered harmful Summary: An example Message-ID: <913@l.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 7 Sep 88 13:53:54 GMT References: <4753@b-tech.UUCP> <1988Sep6.122852.21618@ateng.uucp> Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department Lines: 24 In article <1988Sep6.122852.21618@ateng.uucp>, chip@ateng.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > "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. Some time ago, I was having difficulty in sending email to another site. The problem was that the smart mailer insisted in sending to inhp4, and the link from there was DEAD. However, the map correction had not been made. Now I knew of a path, all links of which were active, and whose pathalias cost could only have been marginally higher. But could I get the mail routed that way? No. I have no objection to rerouting if the mail gets through. However, I would put the burden of getting it through on the rerouter, who should take action if it bounces or falls into the bit bucket because of the rerouting. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)