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)