Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!husc6!purdue!decwrl!vixie
From: vixie@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Vixie)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Rerouting considered GOOD
Message-ID: <19@gnome6.pa.dec.com>
Date: 25 Oct 88 21:56:33 GMT
References: <1988Oct14.111343.27064@ateng.ateng.com> <297@lakart.UUCP> <1988Oct20.121744.2001@ateng.ateng.com> <15@gnome6.pa.dec.com> <1988Oct24.162111.25293@ateng.ateng.com>
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab
Lines: 18

Mr. Chip Salzenberg writes:
# Once a person has acknowledged the truthfulness of that statement, he no
# longer feels any need to search for a technical solution to make active
# routing reliable, since that search has been proved to be pointless.

That's exactly my point.  The maps should be made as correct as possible, in
order to maximize their usefulness (_whatever_ use that may be).  But if the
goal is to make active rerouting better, this isn't going to do it: there are
problems with active rerouting that run a lot deeper than inaccurate maps.

# (By the way, the tone of Paul's comment was uncalled for.  [...])

I think I agree.  Shows what too little sleep can do to one's manners.  My
apologies to all who were offended.
-- 
Paul Vixie
Work:    vixie@decwrl.dec.com    decwrl!vixie    +1 415 853 6600
Play:    paul@vixie.sf.ca.us     vixie!paul      +1 415 864 7013