If I'm wrong, please correct me.
If we simplify the Lightning network, it seems to work similarly unidirectional payment channel between two parties (although Lightning Network is one bi).
So we can simplify the process of a payment between two parties in Lightning Network as follows:
(1) The sender and the consignee only need to create one channel and provide the contract, and the sender enters the recipient's address as the recipient in the contract.
(2) Then, any number of agreed off-chain transactions are made between the sender and the recipient so that the sender's address is checked by the recipient for each Mico payment.
(3) You may be billed through an on-chain transaction where the recipient receives the full amount of the contract.
At first glance, it seems no need for "routing" to process.
Can we ask that now? Why do we need a routing process to make a payment in Lightning Network?
P.S. I refer you to the Lightning Network website, which mentions the following:
"Creating a network of these two – party ledger entries achieves this
possible to find a path over the network routing Packages
on the Internet."
Note: The payment channels are composable, that is If A and B have a payment channel and B and C have another, A C can pay through B. But the thing is, there is one Fee incentive for intermediaries, Now the question is which one is affordable?
(1) As described above.
(2) A and C form another channel between them without paying to B and without routing ?
Therefore, responding to the need for a routing process in Lightning Network depends on the affordability of paying to one or more intermediaries instead of paying for a new direct channel without an intermediary.