Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site noscvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!noscvax!cunningh
From: cunningh@noscvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Usenet topology suboptimal.
Message-ID: <353@noscvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Mar-84 20:06:28 EST
Article-I.D.: noscvax.353
Posted: Sun Mar 11 20:06:28 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Mar-84 19:47:01 EST
References: <510@psuvm.UUCP>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center
Lines: 55

[]

In response to the query "what is the Usenet topology anyways?"

The Usenet links are roughly a restricted subset of the sum total of
existing uucp links.  A link only exists because one site has agreed
to connect up (usually by dialup modems, usually using the uucp
protocol) to another site on a regular basis, say every few hours.
The 'net' effect exists only because there are many sites willing to
forward mail and news traffic.

Not all existing connections are published.  Those that are, for
Usenet news transfers, can be found in the newsgroup 'net.news.map'.
The extensive lists, broken down geographically are re-published every
month by Mark Horton (cbosgd!mark) and friends.  In those 'maps'
you'll find listings of the various sites, their organizations and
connections ... along with some indication of how to contact the
administrator of each site.  Only the information that the site
administrators have chosen to publish in 'net.newsite' tends to get
into the maps.

It's not only possible, but probably happens more often than most
people think, that a site hooks into a Usenet neighbor and doesn't
post, or doesn't notify cbosgd!map ... or changes the sites it swaps
newsgroups with and doesn't bother to publish the changes.

There's over a dozen well-known "backbone" sites that make a
consistent, and sometimes un-appreciated effort to provide as 
reliable as possible news transfer service by interconnecting with
each other, and a generous selection of both local neighboring sites
and sites geographically much further away.

The article which originally sparked this discussion noted that much
of the long-distance traffic goes through a relatively small number of
sites, and often their's no relatively-direct connections apparent for
mail or news.  Thus, it's not uncommon to see a news article on Usenet
that has bounced back and forth across the continent more than once.
Pathological cases have shown up that have also bounced back and forth
across the Atlantic ocean more than once.

This means that probably more money (untold thousands of dollars?) is
being spent on long-distance phone calls than is really necessary,
and that the current topology can be called 'sub-optimal'.

The suggested solution is to encourage as many sites as possible to
set up connections with an orderly series of sites in various parts of
the country.  It was suggested that this would lead to more cost-wise
optimal routine of messages.

Obviously, though, an individual site can only minimize its own phone
bills by minimizing its long-distance connections.  A decision
perhaps in that site's best interest, but not necessarily in the
interest of the network of all sites.  Sigh.
-- 
Bob Cunningham (mail: ...vortex!islenet!bob)