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