Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2428 comp.mail.misc:1434 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!deimos!uxc!tank!mimsy!haven!decuac!jetson!john From: john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: Another example why not to re-route Message-ID: <173@jetson.UPMA.MD.US> Date: 2 Dec 88 05:53:59 GMT References: <140@minya.UUCP><2692@sultra.UUCP> Organization: SMART HOUSE Limited Partnership Lines: 21 In article <2692@sultra.UUCP>, dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes: > Just a quick thought on the psychology of active-rerouting... > It seems to me, that there are two kinds of rerouters; > a) "That's a pretty poor way to route it, I can do better than that" > b) "Hmm. I don't want to use that link unless I have to" Ah, but only the first is what we've been calling active rerouting, while the second, which deals only with the *next* link in the path, is what we've been calling "routing", and which most of us have agreed is just fine. To use the terms Paul (I think) introduced recently: the first involves "peeking"; the second doesn't, so it's ok (and isn't "active rerouting"). So, I certainly agree with your conclusion that the first is obnoxious and the second quite reasonable.... -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net