> No, he's correct here, it's an extra indirection and so overall it can only hurt performance, not improve it.
Really? The cost of an extra hop is just one of tens (hundreds?) of factors that would determine if using WARP would be faster for a particular scenario.
That's not an extra hop, but essentially two different paths with many different hops instead of a more direct one. I'm sure there will be edge cases where this can be faster due to one of those factors, but for most destinations it will be slower.
Really? The cost of an extra hop is just one of tens (hundreds?) of factors that would determine if using WARP would be faster for a particular scenario.