Re: discussion priorities

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

DW,

I'd love this solution if I was running the RegRep and charged 
on a per access basis :-)

But, alas, it's a tad inefficient (read slow transactions) to 
say nothing of the managerial nightmare of keeping the RegRep 
up-to-date with all the routing info (which might include 
alternative routes for when the first one fails). 

For my dime, I'd rather have something like a reference to 
subheaders containing the routing info when you have a multi-hop.
That way, the usual simple 1-hop case uses the current "To" 
field (efficiently) and multi-hops point to an extended route 
in the message somewhere (no network accesses for routing info 
so efficiency isn't lost).  Of course, this needs to be extended 
a bit to cover routing failures and alternative routes.

Of course, there may be a better scheme as I haven't researched 
this topic or consulted with colleagues who are real routing 
gurus.  Anyone have a better wheel?

Hey, David, you didn't even need the steel vest :-)

Best regards,
Henry
----------------------------------------------
At 05:43 PM 08/22/2000 -0400, David RR Webber wrote:
>Message text written by Henry Lowe
>>I included this in my comments, but didn't propvide text.  
>You would probably use source routing for this sort of thing 
>where the route(s) would be contained in the TPA.  But some 
>how these have to get into the Header of the Message so A 
>knows to send the message to P and P knows to send it on to V.
>Also need to have a place in the headers to record it's 
>actual wild and wooly route through the Internet for traceability.
>
>Or is this all there and I just missed it?
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
><wearingsteelvest>
>Sounds like you just look that up in the RegRep and it tells
>you where its really supposed to go ; - )
></wearingsteelvest>
>
>DW.