Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!SEI!AF
From: af@SEI.UCL.AC.BE (Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Re:  Generating tables, tools, etc.
Message-ID: <900213.125905.+0100.af@sei.ucl.ac.be>
Date: 13 Feb 90 11:59:05 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 15
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Sat, 10 Feb 90 13:14:31 EST from <RAF@NIHCU>

On Sat, 10 Feb 90 13:14:31 EST Roger Fajman said:
>One possibility that makes little sense to me is to send a routing
>table to a site that requires some sort of post processing.  If you
>have to post process, you might as well generate the whole table.
>Otherwise you have the worst of both worlds, you have to depend on
>getting that table from the other source and also have to run a program
>at your site.
>
Post-processing would in most case only involve some fixed amount of
memory and processor time growing linearly with the number of entries.
On the other hand, the route extraction process has a tendency to grow
at a more than linear rate, both in memory and processor time (and, as
things go, could even become np-complete in a short while   :-) ).
I may be quite lees costly, on a small machine, to only have to
massage a pre-personalized table.           /AF