Feasible Successor - more or less?

[william]

Well, I'm having some trouble grokking the meaning of feasible successor. Both version 6 and version 7 of the book define a feasible successor in no uncertain terms:

In order for a route to be a feasible successor, its advertised distance must be less than the feasible distance of the successor route.

Now, my understanding seems directly at odds with this statement, since the current successor is, in fact, already the route with the least distance. Therefore, a feasible successor must have more distance to the destination network, and not less.

Would you not agree?

William