Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Rerouting considered GOOD
Message-ID: <1988Sep27.105604.5152@ateng.ateng.com>
Date: 27 Sep 88 14:56:03 GMT
References: <8809212215.AA21035@naggum.se> <2540@sultra.UUCP> <371@ditka.UUCP> 
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 33

I think I've finally figured out what makes active-routing proponents tick.

According to lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear):
>Sorry, Karl.  ihnp4 and seismo are the best examples that sites go away
>and mailing lists DON'T get updated.   Routing is not a thing for humans
>should have to waste their time doing.
 ^^^^^^

The active routing people are optimists.  They start with correct premises:
"People _shouldn't_ have to make routes by hand; the maps _should_ always be
accurate." They then optimistically conclude: "Therefore we _should_ always
believe the maps instead of source routes."

Every postmaster should have this sign over her/his desk:

		 +---------------------------------------+
		 | What should be is not always what is. |
		 +---------------------------------------+

To clarify, here is a table:

      Things                  Should be           Are
      ------                  ---------           ---
      Usenet maps             accurate            inaccurate
      Human-written routes    unnecessary         occasionally necessary
      Active routers          helpful             evil and rude
      Passive routers         half a solution     the best compromise

Any questions?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg                 or 
A T Engineering                My employer may or may not agree with me.
	  The urgent leaves no time for the important.