🚀 go-pugleaf

[Sorry I haven't been able to get you on the phone, Aydin; I've tried
 3 times without success...]

edguer@alpha.ces.cwru.edu writes:
>   Hmm.  Yes, the RFC974 algorithm may require a reroute of the first
>   hop at each relay point along the path to the destination.  Note,
>   however this is only a reroute of THE FIRST HOP and thus would be
>   the same as passive rerouting, not active (rabid) rerouting.
>   RFC974 does not say to look down the list trying to find known
>   hosts, it merely says to look at the first domain (host) in the
>   path and try to reach it.

If:
	I have a connection to system aaaaa;
	I advertise the connection to aaaaa as _very_ expensive so
		that it doesn't get used by others as a relay much,
		in fact, so expensive that my own paths file contains
		the line
			aaaaa	bbbbb!ccccc!aaaaa!%s
	I nonetheless expect and accept that the occasional piece of
		mail bound for aaaaa should still go straight there, 
		because it's known to my Systems file...
Then:
	An incoming piece of mail specifying
		aaaaa!user
	will have to be rerouted:
		bbbbb!ccccc!aaaaa!user
	because of the requirement, with pathalias as MX, that I
		reroute the first hop, _before_ a direct attempt.

This is morally incorrect.  Maintaining the equivalence of Systems = A
records and pathalias = MX records (and CNAMEs, agreed), I _must_
reroute that first hop.  Making such a reroute into a requirement is
Wrong.  (Making it optional is my business and no one else's, as the
link may be genuinely of high cost.)  I have advertised it as
expensive for any of a wide variety of reasons; perhaps I just find it
politically inconvenient to let people know that I exchange mail with
aaaaa.  Whatever the reason, I want the connection to be available and
used on demand, without most people actually putting it to such use.
Say, just for my pals, who are "in the know" about the connection.

If someone is truly and honestly bright enough to figure out that the
connection from myself to aaaaa is there, and he routes specifically
to me for just that reason, I should be allowed to respect it.  MXing
(first hop rerouting) will prevent that, because it is a requirement.

Therefore I still maintain that !-paths are not source routes.

--Karl